Taking this review.

Neal, please remember to change a bug state to ASSIGNED when taking a review. Otherwise it breaks automation <https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/inconsistent.html>.

(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> Neal, please remember to change a bug state to ASSIGNED when taking a
> review. Otherwise it breaks automation
> <https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/inconsistent.html>.

I didn't even know we *have* automation for this...

> #VCS:      git:git://git.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/xserver
> %if 0%{?gitdate}
> # git snapshot.  to recreate, run:
> # ./make-git-snapshot.sh `cat commitid`
> Source0:   xorg-server-%{gitdate}.tar.xz
> Source1:   make-git-snapshot.sh
> Source2:   commitid
> %else
> Source0:   https://www.x.org/pub/individual/xserver/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> Source1:   gitignore
> %endif

This entire strategy is wrong. The source code for the X server software is hosted on a GitLab instance[1], so you can follow the standard guidelines for snapshot packaging[2].

[1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver
[2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services

> Version:   1.20.99
> Release:   1%{?gitdate:.%{gitdate}}%{?dist}

Please use proper snapshot versioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-aux) pkgconfig(xcb-image) pkgconfig(xcb-icccm)
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-keysyms) pkgconfig(xcb-renderutil)

Please reformat these to be one BR per line, so that it's easily diffable.

> %prep
> %autosetup -N -n %{pkgname}-%{?gitdate:%{gitdate}}%{!?gitdate:%{version}}
> rm -rf .git
> cp %{SOURCE1} .gitignore
> # ick
> %global __scm git
> %{expand:%__scm_setup_git -q}
> %autopatch

Just change this to "%autosetup -S git_am %{?gitdate:-n xserver-%{commit}}"

> Obsoletes: Xwayland < %{version}-%{release}
> [...]
> Obsoletes: Xwayland-devel < %{version}-%{release}

These packages do not exist in Fedora, so this doesn't need to be present.

> # X.org requires lazy relocations to work.
> %undefine _hardened_build
> %undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
> [...]
> export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1"
> export CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1"
> export LDFLAGS="$RPM_LD_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld"

This seems to be the wrong way to enable lazy relocations, per the build flags documentation[3]. Please take a look and see if the guidance provided there works.

[3]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md#lazy-binding

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
> 
> This entire strategy is wrong. The source code for the X server software is
> hosted on a GitLab instance[1], so you can follow the standard guidelines
> for snapshot packaging[2].

Done.

Please note that I used:

  https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/%{pkgname}/-/archive/%{commit}/%{pkgname}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

instead of the suggested:

  https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

because of the difference between the name and the actual package name upstream (that's a bit pecular, as the name is "xorg-x11-server-Xwayland" whereas the project upstream is "xserver" so I prefer using the latter as the source name).

> > Version:   1.20.99
> > Release:   1%{?gitdate:.%{gitdate}}%{?dist}
> 
> Please use proper snapshot versioning:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_snapshots

Done, version/release is now:

Summary:   Xwayland
Name:      xorg-x11-server-Xwayland
Version:   1.20.99
Release:   1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

> > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-aux) pkgconfig(xcb-image) pkgconfig(xcb-icccm)
> > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xcb-keysyms) pkgconfig(xcb-renderutil)
> 
> Please reformat these to be one BR per line, so that it's easily diffable.

Done

> […]
> 
> Just change this to "%autosetup -S git_am %{?gitdate:-n xserver-%{commit}}"

Done, I used:

%autosetup -S git_am %{?gitdate:-n %{pkgname}-%{commit}}

> > Obsoletes: Xwayland < %{version}-%{release}
> > [...]
> > Obsoletes: Xwayland-devel < %{version}-%{release}
> 
> These packages do not exist in Fedora, so this doesn't need to be present.

Sure, done.

> > # X.org requires lazy relocations to work.
> > %undefine _hardened_build
> > %undefine _strict_symbol_defs_build
> > [...]
> > export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1"
> > export CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1"
> > export LDFLAGS="$RPM_LD_FLAGS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld"
> 
> This seems to be the wrong way to enable lazy relocations, per the build
> flags documentation[3]. Please take a look and see if the guidance provided
> there works.

Actually, none of this should be needed for Xwayland which does not load any DDX at runtime, so I just removed the whole lot.

Updates spec/src.rpm (with new versioning) here:

Spec URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.spec
SRPM URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99-1.20210114gita926980.fc34.src.rpm

Some drive-by comments (Neal, I hope you don't mind):

- The comment at the top of the .spec file is confusing, and I assume it's no longer accurate, since the .spec file is now using the standard way to use git snapshots from GitLab.

- The snapshot versioning isn't quite correct yet:

The version "1.20.99" does not exist upstream (yet?), so either use the latest stable version as base Version (1.20.10) and use post-release-snapshot versioning (Release "1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}").
Or, if "1.20.99" *would* be the next expected version, then use "1.20.99" as base Version and use pre-release-snapshot versioning (Release "0.1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}", note the leading "0.", which differentiates pre-release snapshots from post-release-snapshots).

- The history of version/release values in the changelog entries are revealing another snapshot versioning issue:

Since the Version field does not change when bumping to a new commit or doing packaging-only changes, the first non-zero digit of "Release" must be incremented by 1 each time (this is what "rpmdev-bumpspec" automatically does for you), and only reset to "1" if the Version field actually changes (or set to "0" and then using rpmdev-bumpspec to bump it to 1 and add a %changelog entry for the new version). Now, I think you can just drop all those changelog entries when importing the package into fedora, but going forward, you should not keep a Release of "1" when the "Version" is unchanged, because that's the wrong way to do versioning in this case.

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #6)
> Some drive-by comments (Neal, I hope you don't mind):
> 
> - The comment at the top of the .spec file is confusing, and I assume it's
> no longer accurate, since the .spec file is now using the standard way to
> use git snapshots from GitLab.
> 
> - The snapshot versioning isn't quite correct yet:
> 
> The version "1.20.99" does not exist upstream (yet?), so either use the
> latest stable version as base Version (1.20.10) and use
> post-release-snapshot versioning (Release
> "1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}").

I don't think that's what we'd want, the version (and code) in git main branch upstream is not the same as the one in the stable branch (where 1.20.10 is from), so using 1.20.10 as a the base version would be misleading - We're not shipping a pre-release of the 1.20 branch, but instead the code from upstream main branch which is quite different from the stable branch.

> Or, if "1.20.99" *would* be the next expected version, then use "1.20.99" as
> base Version and use pre-release-snapshot versioning (Release
> "0.1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}", note the leading "0.", which
> differentiates pre-release snapshots from post-release-snapshots).

Actually the current version set upstream in the main branch is "1.20.99.1", meaning that the next pre-release version from upstream in the case of a new version of the Xserver, if any, would be 1.20.99.1, to eventually become a 1.21 branch (again, that would be the expectation, *if* there was to be a new stable release).

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/blob/master/meson.build#L1-8

But there is also a plan to make standalone Xwayland release upstream (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/582), and those would be also change the versioning scheme to a to a year based versioning. So chances are we may never see a 1.20.99.1 upstream.

So, with this considered, I'd rather use something like:

Summary:   Xwayland
Name:      xorg-x11-server-Xwayland
Version:   1.20.99.1
Release:   0.1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

> - The history of version/release values in the changelog entries are
> revealing another snapshot versioning issue:
> 
> Since the Version field does not change when bumping to a new commit or
> doing packaging-only changes, the first non-zero digit of "Release" must be
> incremented by 1 each time (this is what "rpmdev-bumpspec" automatically
> does for you), and only reset to "1" if the Version field actually changes
> (or set to "0" and then using rpmdev-bumpspec to bump it to 1 and add a
> %changelog entry for the new version). Now, I think you can just drop all
> those changelog entries when importing the package into fedora, but going
> forward, you should not keep a Release of "1" when the "Version" is
> unchanged, because that's the wrong way to do versioning in this case.

All good points, yes, the plan was to drop all the old history.

And use releases 0.1.…, 0.2.… as we make new snapshots. Once we get the standalone release upstream, we'll update the actual version and switch to 1.…, 2.…, etc. for releases.

Updated there:

Spec URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.spec
SRPM URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210114gita926980.fc34.src.rpm

> Version:   1.20.99.1
> Release:   0.1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

Rather than hurting ourselves over and over with Release field contortions, consider using tilde versioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_versioning_prereleases_with_tilde

Since we know from the Meson files what the *next* version will be, we should leverage that and keep all upstream versioning in the Version field.

> Source0:   https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/%{pkgname}/-/archive/%{commit}/%{pkgname}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

You might want to have a conditional for using official release tarballs? That way it's straightforward to switch back and forth.

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9)
> > Version:   1.20.99.1
> > Release:   0.1.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
> 
> Rather than hurting ourselves over and over with Release field contortions,
> consider using tilde versioning:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_versioning_prereleases_with_tilde
> 
> Since we know from the Meson files what the *next* version will be, we
> should leverage that and keep all upstream versioning in the Version field.

I realized I should demonstrate what this would look like:

Version: 1.20.99.1%{?gitdate:~git%{gitdate}.%{shortcommit}}
Release: 1%{?dist}

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > Source0:   https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/%{pkgname}/-/archive/%{commit}/%{pkgname}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
> 
> You might want to have a conditional for using official release tarballs?
> That way it's straightforward to switch back and forth.

Yes, I thought of that, but there is no official tarball for Xwayland standalone yet, the merge request I posted in comment 7 is still a draft/RFC. The actual package name/versioniong scheme could possibly change before that lands so I'd rather wait for that MR upstream to land to adjust the spec file.

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9)
> Rather than hurting ourselves over and over with Release field contortions,
> consider using tilde versioning:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_versioning_prereleases_with_tilde

Is it really applicable here? That document there states: “If you wish to package a prerelease version and are confident that you will need to package only tagged releases and not any snapshots until the next release […]”.

That is not the case here, we shall not package tagged versions, only snapshots from git master until the Xwayland standlone MR lands upstream, at least.

> Since we know from the Meson files what the *next* version will be, we
> should leverage that and keep all upstream versioning in the Version field.

But and even then, once Standalone Xwayland lands upstream (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests/582) the actual versioning of that package will be different from the pre-release version we currently have in meson.

Fair points. I would suggest keeping these in the back of your mind if the "standalone Xwayland" thing lands upstream.

Your package is missing BR for gcc, per the C/C++ guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #15)
> Your package is missing BR for gcc, per the C/C++ guidelines:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

Yup, indeed! Updated with the BuildRequires on gcc added.

Spec URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.spec
SRPM URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210114gita926980.fc34.src.rpm

Anything else missing?

Built a new snapshot to keep up with (important) Xwayland changes:

Spec URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.spec
SRPM URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== 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]: 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]: 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", "NTP License (legal
     disclaimer)", "NTP License", "SGI Free Software License B v2.0",
     "Khronos License", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public
     License", "ICU License", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
     "Revised" License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) BSD 3-clause "New"
     or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "NTP License
     (legal disclaimer) Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
     License". 1133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1912335-xorg-x11-server-
     Xwayland/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[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: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debugsource-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.src.rpm
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libEGL
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122gita926980 ['1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34', '1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41']
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/Xwayland
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libEGL
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122gita926980 ['1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34', '1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41']
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/Xwayland
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/archive/9716c4193fd4db7cdf3c6d7fb32d4ad2919cbe46/xserver-9716c41.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 69378c7eba1b58d1f6c30c44062616882acdc5014dcf8fdd2461eea8423e9def
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 69378c7eba1b58d1f6c30c44062616882acdc5014dcf8fdd2461eea8423e9def


Requires
--------
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libEGL
    libGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libXau.so.6()(64bit)
    libXfont2.so.2()(64bit)
    libaudit.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libdrm.so.2()(64bit)
    libepoxy.so.0()(64bit)
    libgbm.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libselinux.so.1()(64bit)
    libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3()(64bit)
    libtirpc.so.3(TIRPC_0.3.0)(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    libxshmfence.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    xorg-x11-server-common

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    pkgconfig

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland:
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland(x86-64)

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel:
    pkgconfig(xwayland)
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel(x86-64)

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debuginfo(x86-64)

xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debugsource:
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debugsource
    xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1912335 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Everything looks good now.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland

Rawhide build complete, closing. Thanks!