Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd-0.20230126gc43f441-3.fc38.src.rpm Description: This is a generator for initrd images (cpio archives compressed with zstd). The initrd is created by downloading rpms and installing them into a temporary location. This is different than the usual approach, where files from the host are used. In the initrd, only systemd is used, and no special runtime is used. This means that only things which are supported by normal packages will work. The package provides a kernel-install plugin that will automatically create an initrd during kernel package installation. This initrd will then be picked up by kernel-install and used in the Boot Loader Specification entry. Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
Taking this for review.
Initial spec review: > %global forgeurl https://github.com/systemd/mkosi-initrd/ > %global distprefix %nil > %forgemeta Please don't use the forge macros, as they are unmaintained and only exist because Go and Font macros require them: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1270 > %global pkgroot /usr/lib/mkosi-initrd Three things: 1. Why is this in the middle of the spec? 2. Why isn't this "%{_prefix}/lib"? 3. Why is this in /usr/lib and not /usr/libexec? > /usr/lib/kernel/install.d/50-mkosi-initrd.install Please use "%{_prefix}/lib" > %files > %doc README.md > %doc docs/fedora.md License file is missing.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > Please don't use the forge macros Done. > > %global pkgroot /usr/lib/mkosi-initrd > 1. Why is this in the middle of the spec? It's defined right above the first use. It's just a helper variable to avoid repeating the same thing a few times. > 2. Why isn't this "%{_prefix}/lib"? > > > /usr/lib/kernel/install.d/50-mkosi-initrd.install > > Please use "%{_prefix}/lib" I changed it to use %{_prefix}. (Though I'm not convinced that this change makes sense. kernel-install doesn't support relocation. Various paths for plugins cannot be changed easily, they are documented and fixed in the code. So if in fact anyone tried to use a different %_prefix, this package wouldn't work at all. I know that using %_prefix is the received wisdom, but really, for many cases it doesn't do anything except obfuscate.) > 3. Why is this in /usr/lib and not /usr/libexec? The package is mostly some config files, so /usr/lib/<package> seems appropriate. This also follows the general systemd style. > License file is missing. Oops. I added it now upstream. Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd-0.20230506g6ba68f1-1.fc39.src.rpm
You still have the forge macros: > %global forgeurl https://github.com/systemd/mkosi-initrd/ > %global distprefix %nil > %forgemeta
Updated again.
> Requires: systemd Do we actually require systemd on the host itself to produce the images? > Initrds created in this way support some common machine types, but no more: > - plain partitions > - LVM2 > - LUKS What about Btrfs?
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > Requires: systemd > > Do we actually require systemd on the host itself to produce the images? We don't. Though this is a bit theoretical atm, because kernel-modules-core requires kernel-core which pulls in dracut and systemd. Those dependencies don't make sense and hopefully we can drop them one day. I dropped Required: systemd, kmod now. > > Initrds created in this way support some common machine types, but no more: > > - plain partitions > What about Btrfs? Btrfs and generally any other fs type supported by the kernel should work, as long as the underlying block storage is supported.
Created attachment 1963345 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5849328 to 5897235
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5897235 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189633-mkosi-initrd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05897235-mkosi-initrd/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.
> Version: 0.20230506g%{shortcommit} This is not valid for snapshot version: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Suggestion: "0~%{commitdate}g%{shortcommit}"
Fixed. Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/mkosi-initrd-0~20230506g6ba68f1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1963400 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5897235 to 5897335
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5897335 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189633-mkosi-initrd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05897335-mkosi-initrd/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.
Package review notes: * Package is named appropriately * Package builds and installs * Package licensing is correctly identified and license files are installed * No serious issues from rpmlint Nit: You may want to consider "Supplements: mkosi" since it no longer drags in a bunch of stuff. PACKAGE APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mkosi-initrd
Thanks! > You may want to consider "Supplements: mkosi" since it no longer drags in a bunch of stuff. I'm not sure if I want to do this yet. The package has kernel-install plugin, which shouldn't do anything without configuration, but bugs do happen. This is going to remain very niche at least for a while, so I think it's fine if users have to install explicitly.
FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e
FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-244b6a473e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.