Bug 2196711 - Review Request: xwaylandvideobridge - Utility to allow streaming Wayland windows to X applications
Summary: Review Request: xwaylandvideobridge - Utility to allow streaming Wayland wind...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carl George 🤠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://invent.kde.org/system/xwaylan...
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-05-10 01:54 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2023-05-15 14:07 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xwaylandvideobridge-0~git20230504.3445aff-1.fc39
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-05-15 13:23:41 UTC
Type: ---
carl: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2023-05-10 01:54:49 UTC
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
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

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2023-05-10 01:57:56 UTC
Note that this package will not build until Plasma 5.27.5 releases into Fedora.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2023-05-10 01:59:52 UTC
Copr build:

Build log:

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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2023-05-10 15:47:38 UTC
Plasma 5.27.5 is now landing in Rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1027388879

Comment 4 Carl George 🤠 2023-05-12 01:40:51 UTC
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



The Desktop file is not being validated.  Add this to %check.

+desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_kf5_datadir}/applications/org.kde.%{name}.desktop


Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2023-05-12 03:17:55 UTC
(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.

Comment 6 Carl George 🤠 2023-05-12 03:45:58 UTC
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.


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.

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2023-05-12 12:58:00 UTC
Fine. Fixed. I updated the files in place.

Comment 8 Carl George 🤠 2023-05-15 03:28:16 UTC
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

[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.
[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/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[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
[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
[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
[x]: %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: 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.

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-05-15 11:22:27 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xwaylandvideobridge

Comment 10 Neal Gompa 2023-05-15 13:23:41 UTC
Built in Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2200212

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