This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117345012

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7420361
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279333-elementary-greeter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07420361-elementary-greeter/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-greeter
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

Is there a specific reason for using the “traditional” snapshot versioning style

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots_2

Version:        7.0.0
Release:        2.%{commitdate}.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

rather than the current style?

 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

Version:        7.0.0^%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}
Release:        2%{?dist}

I also notice that, while the guidelines for the old snapshot information field in the release only have “suggested” formats,

- YYYYMMDD.<revision>
- YYYYMMDD<scm><revision>

the ones for the new snapshot information field in the version say one of the following formats “should” be followed:

- <date>.<revision>
- <date><scm><revision>
- <number>.<revision>
- <number>.<scm><revision>

%{commitdate}.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} is <date>.<scm><revision>, which doesn’t exactly match any of these formats.

> Is there a specific reason for using the “traditional” snapshot versioning style
> rather than the current style?

Two "minor" reasons:
I find the "old" snapshot versioning style without rpmautospec easier to get right.
It's also consistent with other elementary project snapshots that I'm working on right now.

> %{commitdate}.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} is <date>.<scm><revision>, which doesn’t exactly match any of these formats.

Correct. Though IMO it's an oversight that this is not a documented format. I find 20240513.gitabc4567 much more readable than 20240513gitabc4567 (and I'm pretty sure only the one *with* the dot sorts correctly wrt/ RPM sorting, in the rare cases where this matters).

Well, technically the guidelines say that the old style is deprecated but “MAY” be used, and the specific snapshot information field formats are “suggested,” so I guess if this works that much better for you then that’s OK.

I will probably review this, but I’m not going to officially assign it to myself until I have time to do it, in case someone else gets to it first.

The fedora-review template notes that this fails to install:

DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides elementary-theme-gtk3 needed by elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from @commandline
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides elementary-wallpapers needed by elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from @commandline
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides pantheon-session-settings >= 30.90 needed by elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from @commandline

Are these awaiting review somewhere?

I suppose this could be reviewed without its runtime dependencies, but it doesn’t make sense to build it until it would be installable.

Just adding a note that this is a re-review for unretirement of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-greeter.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #6)
> The fedora-review template notes that this fails to install:
> 
> DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides elementary-theme-gtk3 needed by
> elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from @commandline
> DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides elementary-wallpapers needed by
> elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from @commandline
> DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides pantheon-session-settings >= 30.90
> needed by elementary-greeter-7.0.0-2.20240402.git3ff7809.fc41.x86_64 from
> @commandline
> 
> Are these awaiting review somewhere?
> 
> I suppose this could be reviewed without its runtime dependencies, but it
> doesn’t make sense to build it until it would be installable.

Damn, it looks like I missed these. Sorry about that.
Not sure how this slipped through the cracks, basically all mock builds I do locally use "--postinstall".

So this is not ready until I manage to file re-review requests for those three packages too.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I am still working on this, however packaging elementary-greeter is now blocked by upstream work to support mutter 48:
https://github.com/elementary/greeter/issues/790