Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/greetd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03413403-greetd/greetd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/greetd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03413403-greetd/greetd-0.8.0-0.3.fc36.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/greetd/ Description: greetd is a minimal and flexible login manager daemon that makes no assumptions about what you want to launch. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr Review notes: - https://git.alebastr.su/rpms/greetd/-/tree/review for exploded srpm view - not published on crates.io - greetd_ipc is published though, so I'm removing it from the workspace - %dynamic_buildrequires is borrowed from zola.spec - SELinux: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 - pam configuration - slightly modified configs from SDDM - xdg-desktop-portal thing is actually required for unbreaking GTK (greetd-gtkgreet) under lightweight wayland compositors
Taking this review.
> Requires: (%{name}-selinux = %{version}-%{release} if selinux-policy-%{selinuxtype}) You can use just "selinux-policy" here instead. > Requires: selinux-policy-%{selinuxtype} > Requires(post): selinux-policy-%{selinuxtype} This is redundant with %{?selinux_requires} > %pre selinux > # SELinux contexts are saved so that only affected files can be > # relabeled after the policy module installation > %selinux_relabel_pre -s %{selinuxtype} > > %post selinux > %selinux_modules_install -s %{selinuxtype} %{_datadir}/selinux/packages/%{selinuxtype}/%{name}.pp.bz2 > %selinux_relabel_post -s %{selinuxtype} > > %postun selinux > if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then > %selinux_modules_uninstall -s %{selinuxtype} %{name} > %selinux_relabel_post -s %{selinuxtype} > fi You're assuming some kind of policy type, which is a bad assumption to make, since these can be swapped. You do not need to assume SELinux policy type, as seen here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snapd/blob/ff9639a57941497bac4272d06a90a0bdaa52b9d6/f/snapd.spec#_922-936 Also, install your policy module *above* the policy type, so it's available regardless of policy type. See an example of this here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snapd/blob/ff9639a57941497bac4272d06a90a0bdaa52b9d6/f/snapd.spec#_630-632
Pretty much everything SELinux related was taken from https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814. I feel that this feedback may be helpful in the PR as well, as it's been in a review limbo for more time than I've been an active Fedora contributor. Anyways, here I only care about `targeted` policy. I never tried `minimum` or `mls` and I expect these not to be fully compatible with the `targeted`. Pretty sure that `minimum` doesn't even load `xserver` module.
Good idea, I commented there accordingly.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2052407-greetd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200, /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200, /etc/pam.d, /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/sysusers.d, /usr/lib/systemd [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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. [x]: 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 20480 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in greetd [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in greetd- fakegreet , greetd-selinux [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/greetd-docs/blob/53032137/index.md#/greetd-docs-53032137.md : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f50cd13236777f8195c3a82ea54bc7197e1eab44a13d39cca3b24eecd8ceb68b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f50cd13236777f8195c3a82ea54bc7197e1eab44a13d39cca3b24eecd8ceb68b https://git.sr.ht/~kennylevinsen/greetd/archive/0.8.0.tar.gz#/greetd-0.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47a73709df60f04b63fc50cfc409e47a451a9620777638f527b9d9333256035f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47a73709df60f04b63fc50cfc409e47a451a9620777638f527b9d9333256035f Requires -------- greetd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (greetd-selinux = 0.8.0-0.3.fc37 if selinux-policy-targeted) /bin/sh config(greetd) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0()(64bit) libpam_misc.so.0(LIBPAM_MISC_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) greetd-fakegreet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) greetd-selinux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libselinux-utils policycoreutils policycoreutils-python-utils selinux-policy selinux-policy-base selinux-policy-targeted greetd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): greetd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- greetd: config(greetd) greetd greetd(x86-64) group(greetd) service(graphical-login) user(greetd) greetd-fakegreet: greetd-fakegreet greetd-fakegreet(x86-64) greetd-selinux: greetd-selinux greetd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) greetd-debuginfo greetd-debuginfo(x86-64) greetd-debugsource: greetd-debugsource greetd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2052407 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Java, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200, > /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200, /etc/pam.d, > /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted, /usr/lib/systemd/system, > /usr/lib/sysusers.d, /usr/lib/systemd These can be ignored for now, this looks like incomplete file ownership by packages this already depends on.
Everything else looks fine, I guess, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/greetd
FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20
FEDORA-2022-189a40806d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-189a40806d
FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-189a40806d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-189a40806d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-189a40806d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-47dae53a20 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-189a40806d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.