Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/composefs/composefs-1.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images. The composefs project combines several underlying Linux features to provide a very flexible mechanism to support read-only mountable filesystem trees, stacking on top of an underlying "lower" Linux filesystem. Fedora Account System Username: smooge
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.