Bug 2521657

Summary: Review Request: read-only-root-fs - Read only root fs setup for Transactional style systems on Fedora
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Shawn W Dunn <sfalken>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Neal Gompa <ngompa13>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: ngompa13, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: ngompa13: fedora-review?
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://github.com/openSUSE/read-only-root-fs
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2026-08-23 19:51:30 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-24 13:56:28 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897333
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2521657-read-only-root-fs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10897333-read-only-root-fs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Systemd service file(s) in read-only-root-fs
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2026-08-26 13:38:34 UTC
Initial spec review:

> %dnl BuildRequires:  bootloader-rpm-macros?

This can be dropped.

> %package volatile

This should be "%package -n dracut-volatile-overlay" instead, since that's the name of the dracut module.
All the other dracut modules need to be correctly subpackaged too, and the dependencies for the modules needs to be correctly specified (if needed).

> %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{commit}

Unless you plan to support EPEL 9 or older, this can be just "%autosetup -C -p1"

> %post
 [...]

> %posttrans
 [...]

These scriptlets are dangerous and make too many assumptions. They need to be dropped and reworked entirely.