Bug 1936080 - Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities
Summary: Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1910504
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-03-06 15:16 UTC by Timothée Floure
Modified: 2022-04-03 14:43 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-04-03 14:43:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Timothée Floure 2021-03-06 15:16:30 UTC
Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/3fbdef61709ccb7102cffe3ccc6f39b78ed84f37/hikari/hikari.spec
SRPM URL: https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/lKBT
Description: Hikari is a stacking Wayland compositor with additional tiling capabilities, it is heavily inspired by the Calm Window manager (cwm(1)). Its core concepts are views, groups, sheets and the workspace.
Fedora Account System Username: fnux

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2021-03-16 09:43:28 UTC
 - Specify set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:

%build
%set_build_flags
bmake WITH_POSIX_C_SOURCE=YES \
      WITH_XWAYLAND=YES \
      WITH_SCREENCOPY=YES \
      WITH_GAMMACONTOL=YES \
      WITH_LAYERSHELL=YES

 - Own these directories:

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/hikari, /usr/share/backgrounds/hikari

 - Mark this file as noreplace:

[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
     Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/pam.d/hikari-unlocker %config
     /etc/hikari/hikari.conf

%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/%{name}-unlocker
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{name}.conf

 - It seems hikari needs seituid permissions:

Installing without SUID 
hikari requires root privileges during startup on BSD systems to initialize the wlroots backend, those are dropped as soon as possible. If you don’t
happen to need this you can prevent installation from setting this bit by issuing WITHOUT_SUID. (SUID is still set for hikari-unlocker to allow
communication with PAM, which is required for password authentication) 
make WITHOUT_SUID=YES install

 - Should be 2021 here:

* Sat Mar 06 2020 Timothée Floure <fnux> - 2.2.2-2


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

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


===== 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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
     "NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 134 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/hikari/review-hikari/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/hikari, /usr/share/backgrounds/hikari
[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.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
     Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/pam.d/hikari-unlocker %config
     /etc/hikari/hikari.conf
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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: hikari-2.2.2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          hikari-debuginfo-2.2.2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          hikari-debugsource-2.2.2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          hikari-2.2.2-2.fc35.src.rpm
hikari.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cwm -> cw, cm, cam
hikari.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
hikari.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/hikari
hikari.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/hikari/hikari.conf
hikari.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/hikari-unlocker
hikari.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hikari-unlocker
hikari.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cwm -> cw, cm, cam
hikari.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace
hikari.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Mar 06 2020 Timothée Floure <fnux> - 2.2.2-2
hikari.src: E: specfile-error error: %changelog not in descending chronological order
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings.

Comment 2 Aleksei Bavshin 2021-03-17 17:27:24 UTC
>  - It seems hikari needs seituid permissions:

As far as I can see, nothing here requires suid.
`hikari` works with logind wlroots backend and `hikari-unlocker` only needs permission to authenticate current user, which does not require suid in Linux pam. The documentation might be just a tad biased towards BSD systems.

> chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}

I believe the canonical way to do that in rpm spec is `%attr(0755,-,-) %{_bindir}/%{name}` in %files section.

---

Timothée, do you mind delaying import of `hikari` until f34 final freeze?
wlroots 0.13.0 ETA is end of March and I'm not sure if we will be able to get compatible release of hikari fast enough to meet f34 update deadlines.

Comment 3 Timothée Floure 2021-03-20 19:32:52 UTC
Spec URL: https://paste.sr.ht/blob/f2c0c80d7db747ced515033fbadcf2eb1aa300ef
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8079/64198079/hikari-2.2.2-3.fc33.src.rpm

> - Specify set_build_flags to use Fedora default build flags:

Done.

>  - Own these directories:

Done.

>  - Mark this file as noreplace:

Done.

>  - Should be 2021 here:

Done.

>  - It seems hikari needs seituid permissions:

It doesn't, as Aleksei mentioned. I removed it.

> I believe the canonical way to do that in rpm spec is `%attr(0755,-,-) %{_bindir}/%{name}` in %files section.

Didn't know about this, thanks!

> Timothée, do you mind delaying import of `hikari` until f34 final freeze?
> wlroots 0.13.0 ETA is end of March and I'm not sure if we will be able to get compatible release of hikari fast enough to meet f34 update deadlines.

Ack, I'll ask my upstream what it think about wlroots 0.13.0 - but don't mind keeping it in rawhide if needed.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2021-03-20 19:42:12 UTC
Package approved.
(please request the repo now even if you don't import it yet)

Comment 5 Timothée Floure 2021-03-27 15:35:25 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4)
> Package approved.
> (please request the repo now even if you don't import it yet)

Waiting on RHBZ#1910504 dependency first.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-04-12 14:40:06 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hikari

Comment 7 Package Review 2022-04-03 14:43:52 UTC
Package is in repositories now, closing.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.