Bug 2154636 - Review Request: wf-recorder - Screen recorder for wlroots-based compositors eg swaywm
Summary: Review Request: wf-recorder - Screen recorder for wlroots-based compositors e...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neal Gompa
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-12-18 06:37 UTC by Bob Hepple
Modified: 2023-01-13 01:31 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-01-04 22:46:50 UTC
Type: ---
ngompa13: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Bob Hepple 2022-12-18 06:37:44 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wf-recorder/fedora-37-x86_64/05152864-wf-recorder/wf-recorder.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wf-recorder/fedora-37-x86_64/05152864-wf-recorder/wf-recorder-0.3.0-5.fc37.src.rpm

wf-recorder is a utility program for screen recording of wlroots-based
compositors (more specifically, those that support wlr-screencopy-v1
and xdg-output). Its dependencies are ffmpeg, wayland-client and

Fedora Account System Username: wef

Comment 1 Bob Hepple 2022-12-18 06:38:52 UTC
In this build, the default codec has been changed to libvpx-v9 as that is available in ffmpeg and ffmpeg-free.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2022-12-18 20:46:25 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 3 Bob Hepple 2022-12-21 08:06:21 UTC
Thanks Neal. As you can see, I've taken the path of least resistance (vp9) as I wasn't keen on fiddling with vp8 and file extensions. I have added a message on ^C / SIGINT to please wait for termination.

Comment 4 Neal Gompa 2022-12-21 14:26:43 UTC
> - change default codec to libopenh264

This is wrong in the changelog now?

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2022-12-21 14:48:09 UTC
You might want to try to see if https://github.com/ammen99/wf-recorder/pull/198 helps with this.

Comment 6 Bob Hepple 2022-12-21 23:49:37 UTC
Awesome! Thanks Neal!

This one is built from https://github.com/ammen99/wf-recorder/pull/198 - works fine on f37 with ffmpeg and ffmpeg-free. 

With ffmpeg, '-c libx264' still works but you need to use '-f recording.mp4' to get the exact behaviour as in the rpmfusion version (0.3.0-4).

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wf-recorder/fedora-37-x86_64/05165841-wf-recorder/wf-recorder.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wf-recorder/fedora-37-x86_64/05165841-wf-recorder/wf-recorder-0.3.1-0.1.20221222git3933ab2.fc37.src.rpm

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2022-12-23 14:55:14 UTC
> Its dependencies are ffmpeg, wayland-client and
> wayland-protocols.

This statement in the description is redundant with what the package expresses as dependencies automatically. It should be dropped.

Comment 9 Neal Gompa 2022-12-23 23:45:08 UTC
Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[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.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2154636-wf-recorder/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.
[-]: 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
[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.

Checking: wf-recorder-0.3.1-0.1.20221222git3933ab2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpbgw7u99m')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

============================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: wf-recorder-debuginfo-0.3.1-0.1.20221222git3933ab2.fc38.x86_64.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppvvwgx5u')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 

Source checksums
https://github.com/ammen99/wf-recorder/archive/3933ab2260291926daaf2da9d0a7ae0275e99b30/wf-recorder-3933ab2260291926daaf2da9d0a7ae0275e99b30.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0ce5a5a50f06afc3fd73c16c83bdf84126ec34945c84439f963b58d75a33d9a6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ce5a5a50f06afc3fd73c16c83bdf84126ec34945c84439f963b58d75a33d9a6

wf-recorder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

wf-recorder-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

wf-recorder-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):




Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2154636 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, R, fonts

Comment 10 Neal Gompa 2022-12-23 23:46:38 UTC
Everything looks good.


Comment 11 Bob Hepple 2022-12-23 23:49:27 UTC
Thanks Neal!

$ fedpkg request-repo wf-recorder 2154636
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo wf-recorder f37

Comment 12 Kevin Fenzi 2022-12-24 01:09:37 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wf-recorder

Comment 13 Bob Hepple 2022-12-24 11:29:16 UTC
I'm a bit stuck on the 'fedpkg push'. Raised an issue at https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11062.

Comment 14 Neal Gompa 2022-12-24 14:05:13 UTC
My pull requests were merged, so you should rebase your package on current git master: 64b23385ae9f7b858b5bcf60d4001e3873b5f4ca (commit dated today)

Comment 15 Neal Gompa 2022-12-24 15:07:24 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #14)
> My pull requests were merged, so you should rebase your package on current
> git master: 64b23385ae9f7b858b5bcf60d4001e3873b5f4ca (commit dated today)

Whoops, pull a9725f75dd3469e1434c99e32607ad2b7ef62ace instead.

Comment 16 Neal Gompa 2022-12-25 08:38:43 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #15)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #14)
> > My pull requests were merged, so you should rebase your package on current
> > git master: 64b23385ae9f7b858b5bcf60d4001e3873b5f4ca (commit dated today)
> Whoops, pull a9725f75dd3469e1434c99e32607ad2b7ef62ace instead.

Upstream is now using VP8+Vorbis on WebM as of a40f9ad9f09fa142092c67e19f8679246b7ad8af. This makes it more compatible with social media services.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2023-01-04 22:44:28 UTC
FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999

Comment 18 Bob Hepple 2023-01-04 22:46:50 UTC
Now that pdc has been given a kick, I was able to press on. I've built a40f9ad9f09fa142092c67e19f8679246b7ad8af for f37 and rawhide.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2023-01-05 01:26:35 UTC
FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2023-01-13 01:31:27 UTC
FEDORA-2023-f28d8e2999 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

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