Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/xwaylandvideobridge.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/xwaylandvideobridge-0~git20230504.3445aff-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: By design, X11 applications can't access window or screen contents for wayland clients. This is fine in principle, but it breaks screen sharing in tools like Discord, MS Teams, Skype, etc and more. This tool allows us to share specific windows to X11 clients, but within the control of the user at all times. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Note that this package will not build until Plasma 5.27.5 releases into Fedora.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5906081 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196711-xwaylandvideobridge/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05906081-xwaylandvideobridge/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Plasma 5.27.5 is now landing in Rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1027388879
Please list the license explicitly in %files. Using a glob for this as it currently does means that a new upstream version can add a new license file, and there will be no indication that the License field of the package needs to be updated accordingly. -%license LICENSES/* +%license LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt ================================================================================ The AppData file is not being validated. Add this to %check. +appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_kf5_metainfodir}/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage ================================================================================ The Desktop file is not being validated. Add this to %check. +desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_kf5_datadir}/applications/org.kde.%{name}.desktop https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #4) > Please list the license explicitly in %files. Using a glob for this as it > currently does means that a new upstream version can add a new license file, > and there will be no indication that the License field of the package needs > to be updated accordingly. > > -%license LICENSES/* > +%license LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt > This will not change anything either, because %license doesn't work like other directives: it copies the file from the source tree into /usr/share/licenses/%{name}. I'd prefer to keep the glob and check as new releases come in instead. > ============================================================================= > === > > The AppData file is not being validated. Add this to %check. > > +appstream-util validate-relax --nonet > %{buildroot}%{_kf5_metainfodir}/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ > #_app_data_validate_usage > > ============================================================================= > === > > The Desktop file is not being validated. Add this to %check. > > +desktop-file-validate > %{buildroot}%{_kf5_datadir}/applications/org.kde.%{name}.desktop > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_desktop_file_install_usage Taken care of. I've updated the spec and SRPM in place.
I know how %license works. Nothing about how it works changes the fact that globbing here is a bad idea. We similar rules about globbing shared libraries and binaries. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists Relying on the packager to check every single upstream release to validate the license hasn't changed is not reasonable. Besides, you're globbing a single file, it's not even worth it.
Fine. Fixed. I updated the files in place.
fedora-review turned up some unowned directories. - /usr/share/icons/hicolor - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps You can resolve this by adding: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Since this is a minor thing you can fix it while importing the package. Package is APPROVED. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor FIX ON IMPORT [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [-]: 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 architectures. [x]: %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.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xwaylandvideobridge
Built in Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2200212