Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368037-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368037-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.src.rpm COPR URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/sway-extras/ Description: xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots. This project seeks to add support for the screenshot, screencast, and possibly remote-desktop xdg-desktop-portal interfaces for wlroots based compositors. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr As usual, Release will be set to 1 for dist-git import. I'm keeping it at 0.x to make upgrade from copr to official package painless.
Some remarks: * Why not just > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4 This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire. * The versioning constraint in > pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.14 is unnecessary. Even Fedora 30 ships 1.17. In this case, it is recommended to remove the constraint [1]: > For instance in the example above, when no current Fedora release shipped with libfubar < 1.2.3-7, it is no longer necessary to list the explicit, versioned requirement. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4 > This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire. BR does not directly affect binary package Requires, thus the explicit versioned dependency on pipewire is still necessary. I can change both dependencies to 0.3.4; it'll be easier to track and 0.3.4 is just 1 karma point from stable f32-updates. % rpm -qRp results_xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/0.1.0/0.1.fc32/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm |grep pipewire libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) > * The versioning constraint in > > pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.14 > is unnecessary. Even Fedora 30 ships 1.17. In this case, it is recommended to remove the constraint [1]: Nice catch. Removed. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368748-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368748-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.src.rpm
(In reply to Aleksei Bavshin from comment #2) > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4 > > This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire. > > BR does not directly affect binary package Requires, thus the explicit > versioned dependency on pipewire is still necessary. I can change both > dependencies to 0.3.4; it'll be easier to track and 0.3.4 is just 1 karma > point from stable f32-updates. > I still find this unnecessary, as this only becomes a problem if someone installs this package on a system that's not up-to-date, or if the user actively downgrades pipewire. In any case, it should probably be Requires: pipewire-libs%{?_isa} >= 0.3.4 Unless /usr/bin/pipewire is actually called?
I'm just being extra cautious because I feel that the constraint enforced on source package should apply to the binary package as well. Also, the bug in pipewire 0.3.2 is really subtle and I want to avoid bug reports like 'I run screen sharing a couple of times and it's no longer working and restarting xdg-desktop-portal-* doesn't help at all'. > In any case, it should probably be > Requires: pipewire-libs%{?_isa} >= 0.3.4 ...right. I should've used pipewire-libs from the beginning. Thanks! Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369017-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369017-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.src.rpm
Approved! Please do have a look at the two minor issues listed below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Could not download Source2: https://emersion.fr/.well-known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ The URL does not work because it does not save the key as .gpg file. Not a blocker. - xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-xdg-desktop-portal- wlr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source2: https://emersion.fr/.well- known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.src.rpm xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screencast -> screen cast, screen-cast, screenshot xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emersion/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/releases/download/v0.1.0/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 02482f86d5d36f0119ffd2d9181fb2b0a0028e154af7f873eb557733bcb06971 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02482f86d5d36f0119ffd2d9181fb2b0a0028e154af7f873eb557733bcb06971 https://github.com/emersion/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/releases/download/v0.1.0/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 69d67c236f4bd498323af509d44ec4a1b826da337f7ee64bbfbdb98bfda8e541 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 69d67c236f4bd498323af509d44ec4a1b826da337f7ee64bbfbdb98bfda8e541 Requires -------- xdg-desktop-portal-wlr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh dbus grim libc.so.6()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_243)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) pipewire-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-desktop-portal xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xdg-desktop-portal-wlr: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr xdg-desktop-portal-wlr(x86-64) xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debuginfo(x86-64) xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, Haskell, fonts, Python, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review! > - Could not download Source2: https://emersion.fr/.well-known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > The URL does not work because it does not save the key as .gpg file. Not a blocker. The URL contains Simon's public key in gpg binary format, and it's referenced from https://emersion.fr. spectool -g works with that. I'm just renaming it according to the gpgverify section[1] of the guidelines (and of course I read that section and aware that gpg key goes into the git repo instead of lookaside cache). > - xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots That's the case where interface/API name supposed to be preserved as is. https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal uses `xdg-desktop-portal` in lowercase, as well as all other references I've seen. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
BTW, I'll be adding @sway-sig as comaintainer for this package (and kanshi, I guess), but I don't think it's suitable for the sway module. Won't build for f31 anyways due to outdated pipewire.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr
FEDORA-2020-770c779368 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-770c779368
FEDORA-2020-770c779368 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-770c779368 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-770c779368 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-770c779368 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.