Hi all, I am following up on Fedora review #2548541 and sponsorship request #802 with a refreshed source-only application snapshot for whatsapp-desktop 1.9.20 (RPM revision 2).
The current SPEC had kept the dated 1.9.12 review Source0 after application version updates. I fixed that in merged PR #14: review sources now use a version-specific tag, and the source-package builder checks the expanded URL/version against committed source and records them in the build manifest. Review snapshot, checksums and validation: https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/releases/tag/packaging-review-1.9.20-fedora43 SPEC: https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/releases/download/packaging-review-1.9.20-fedora43/whatsapp-desktop.spec SRPM: https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/releases/download/packaging-review-1.9.20-fedora43/whatsapp-desktop-1.9.20-2.fc46.src.rpm Fresh validation on 2026-10-25: - 399 application checks pass. Both GitHub CI jobs pass, and a fresh Ubuntu 24.04 build from the .dsc passes with no Lintian package errors. - The SRPM rebuilt and the application RPM installed in a fresh Rawhide container using official nodejs-electron-43.2.0-1.fc46. rpmlint reports zero errors and warnings. - The installed application rendered the real logged-out WhatsApp login page and QR canvas, Settings, Fonts and About with actual preloads/IPC. Private preference write/readback, hide/show and the native WM_CLASS matching the desktop entry passed. - All 10 published review assets were downloaded anonymously and matched their SHA256 checksums. These are basic compatibility checks using private data, Xvfb X11 and disabled GPU acceleration. Signed-in messaging/calls, native Wayland, hardware acceleration and full desktop portal integration remain unvalidated. The application package still uses Fedora's runtime and does not bundle or download Electron during its build. Debian's separate runtime prerequisite remains unresolved. I am still seeking an application reviewer and a packager sponsor/mentor: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2548541 https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/sponsors/issues/802 Could someone help with the application review or advise on a suitable sponsorship path? This update does not claim review approval, sponsorship or official archive acceptance. Thank you, Abdallah Shehawey FAS: abdallah-shehawey On Sun, 11 Oct 2026 03:47:10 -0500, Abdallah Shehawey <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Gordon, Thank you for explaining the runtime maintenance tradeoffs and the value of Fedora's source-built Electron package. I agree that Electron 40 is no longer a suitable supported target; the upstream schedule lists its end of life as July 1, 2026: https://releases.electronjs.org/schedule The >= 40, < 41 requirement was in my initial Fedora proposal. I revised the Fedora package to require Electron >= 43, < 44 after testing Fedora Rawhide's official nodejs-electron-43.2.0-1.fc46. The updated proposal and results were posted in this thread and in the review: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FMU2S7YOLQY33XZLSWI5BDIJ3XWGHASQ/ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2548541#c1 The immutable revision 2 SPEC, source RPM and checksums are here: https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/releases/tag/packaging-review-2026-10-10-fedora43 This application package contains no downloaded Electron runtime and uses Fedora's packaged runtime. I rebuilt the source RPM, installed the resulting application RPM in an isolated Rawhide environment, and obtained zero rpmlint errors and warnings. I checked the real logged-out QR page, Settings, Fonts, About, IPC preferences and native window class using private XDG directories and X11 with GPU disabled. Signed-in messaging and calls, native Wayland and hardware acceleration remain unvalidated; I have not expanded the dependency range to later major versions. These Fedora packaging changes are separate from the existing stable 1.9.12 bundled release, which still uses Electron 40, and the Debian proposal, whose runtime prerequisite remains unresolved. Neither the application review nor sponsorship has been approved. My immediate contribution is application compatibility testing and source packaging. I would appreciate guidance on how application maintainers could coordinate with the proposed Chromium SIG when it is established, and on the next steps for review and packager mentorship. I cannot yet make a commitment to maintaining the Electron runtime itself. Thank you, Abdallah Shehawey Fedora account: abdallah-shehawey On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 05:03:09 -0700, Abdallah Shehawey < [email protected]> wrote: > I am the upstream author of whatsapp-desktop, an independent GPL-3.0-or-later desktop client for WhatsApp Web with tray integration, notifications, themes, configurable fonts and privacy controls. It requires an existing WhatsApp account and Internet access and is not affiliated with Meta or WhatsApp. > > I have prepared a source-only application packaging proposal. It installs JavaScript and data and depends on a separately packaged Electron >= 40, < 41; the application build neither downloads Electron nor runs npm. The application tests and package builds pass in clean Ubuntu 24.04 and Fedora 44 environments. Fedora rpmlint reports zero errors and warnings. > > Public source review artifacts (Fedora SPEC/SRPM and Debian .dsc/orig/quilt sources, with checksums): > https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/releases/tag/packaging-review-2026-10-09 > > Merged packaging changes and validation: > https://github.com/abdallah-shehawey/whatsapp-desktop/pull/6 > > Debian ITP, acknowledged by the BTS: > https://bugs.debian.org/1150415 > > The key prerequisite is Electron: it is not currently packaged in the target official archives, and Debian's runtime request https://bugs.debian.org/842420 remains open. The ITP is explicitly blocked on that runtime work. I have not completed Electron source packaging, and these application artifacts are not an accepted or currently installable official archive package. > > I would like to pursue inclusion in Fedora's official repositories. Could a Fedora packager advise on the Electron prerequisite, review eligibility for this independent web-service client, and sponsorship for a new contributor? The directly downloadable SPEC and SRPM are linked above. I understand that a formal Fedora Package Review must be filed through a Bugzilla account tied to my Fedora Account System email; this email is a request for packaging guidance, not a claim that a formal review has already been filed. > > Regards, > Abdallah Shehawey
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
