Bug 2243351

Additional information:
COPR build for rawhide: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/composefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06517526-composefs/
COPR rpmreview: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/composefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06517526-composefs/fedora-review/review.txt

COPR top level: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smooge/composefs/

Updated to 1.0.1 
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs-1.0.1/composefs-1.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
RPM(s) URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs-1.0.1/

COPR is having problems currently so no updated builds there.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6524067
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243351-composefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06524067-composefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
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.

The base package Requires -libs, and -devel requires the base package, while -libs can be installed separately.
However, in the %files section, the license text is included only in the base package - hence,
it is possible to install -libs without getting the license text installed.

License text should be either included in both the base package and -libs, or moved to -libs.
(Since the base package requires -libs, and -devel requires the base package, putting the license text
only in -libs still ensures that the license text will always be installed.)
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing

> %files
> %{_mandir}/man*/*.gz
Do not assume man pages will be gzipped.
Use a wildcard that can match any compression format.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

Might as well use autorelease and autochangelog btw?

@colin I can do so after the package is accepted into Fedora. I have not had much luck using them on packages outside of a 'forge', but that may be my not knowing the tooling well.

(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #4)
> The base package Requires -libs, and -devel requires the base package, while
> -libs can be installed separately.
> However, in the %files section, the license text is included only in the
> base package - hence,
> it is possible to install -libs without getting the license text installed.
> 
> License text should be either included in both the base package and -libs,
> or moved to -libs.
> (Since the base package requires -libs, and -devel requires the base
> package, putting the license text
> only in -libs still ensures that the license text will always be installed.)
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing
> 

Thanks. I thought I misread the ordering of packages. Will fix this


> > %files
> > %{_mandir}/man*/*.gz
> Do not assume man pages will be gzipped.
> Use a wildcard that can match any compression format.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

thanks again

Fixed the items Artur Frenszek-Iwicki pointed out and uploaded new items to fedorapeople.org

COPR toplevel: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smooge/composefs/
SRPM: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs-1.0.1-2/composefs-1.0.1-2.fc40.src.rpm
SPEC: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs-1.0.1-2/composefs.spec

I'm uncertain whether we should --with-fuse now.  It's more of a demo/debugging tool IMO.  Arguably if we do ship it it could be a subpackage.

I could definitely see us wanting to ship small images without FUSE.

For now my vote would be to drop it.

Created attachment 1994222 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6524067 to 6532624

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6532624
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243351-composefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06532624-composefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
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.

--with-fuse just builds the fuse binary for the tests, it is not installed, so is not in the resulting rpm. Same with --with-yajl, it implies composefs-from-json which is also only used for the tests.

Since we don't seem to be running make check that seems unnecessary, or maybe we should add a make check run into it?

This looks fine to me for now. 

> maybe we should add a make check run into it?

That's likely to break I believe because `make check` uses e.g. FUSE etc. and I wouldn't be surprised if Koji filters that out.

Really we need to do install tests for composefs to do real testing.

> Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
The main package's dependency on the -libs subpackage should be archful: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Thanks.  Fixed locally.

(I'm trying to take over this one because it's important for ostree/bootc work)

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57467

Ah, I guess I can't and smooge needs to.

@walters now that it is assigned to you, can you set the review flag to ?, save, then set the review flag to +. I can't seem to trigger the request because I am the owner of the ticket (the previous failure was because you had set it to + before owning the ticket so it didn't know who to set the from on the ticket.]

(To be clear I was more trying to assist/push things forward here and ideally maintenance is collaborative; I think this package is exactly one that should be owned by a joint "image based updates" team)

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/composefs

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72

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

Stephen can you please make me, alex and giuseppe admins on this package?

xref https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57676

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

I have added walters and alexl to package. giuseppe does not seem to be a packager and I don't know the process to make them one these days.