Bug 2387553 - Review Request: greenboot-rs - Generic Health Check Framework for systemd
Summary: Review Request: greenboot-rs - Generic Health Check Framework for systemd
Keywords:
Status: RELEASE_PENDING
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Peter Robinson
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/%{repo_owner}/%{name}
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-08-11 07:35 UTC by Sayan
Modified: 2025-10-14 10:23 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
pbrobinson: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9396583 to 9396750 (440 bytes, patch)
2025-08-11 09:16 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9396750 to 9404787 (3.03 KB, patch)
2025-08-12 12:33 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-11 07:51:18 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9396583
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387553-greenboot-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09396583-greenboot-rs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'LGPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  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 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-11 09:16:37 UTC
Created attachment 2103240 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9396583 to 9396750

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-11 09:16:39 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9396750
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387553-greenboot-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09396750-greenboot-rs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  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 5 Sayan 2025-08-11 11:42:32 UTC
```
Found issues:

- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
```
necessary: %post,%preun, %postuns is used correctly

Comment 6 Peter Robinson 2025-08-11 16:27:26 UTC
I'll review this.

Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-12 12:33:04 UTC
Created attachment 2103349 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9396750 to 9404787

Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-12 12:33:06 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9404787
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387553-greenboot-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09404787-greenboot-rs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  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 11 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-18 11:41:01 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9440137
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387553-greenboot-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09440137-greenboot-rs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- greenboot-rs-0.16.0-025b6e4.spec should be greenboot-rs.spec 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  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 12 Peter Robinson 2025-08-19 20:51:36 UTC
Reviewing.

Looking at the output of the copr bit there's few minor bits that need fixing, the main one is the spec file name, I am presuming that is for review (it should here be the proper one for future reference).

Comment 13 Peter Robinson 2025-08-19 20:52:46 UTC
> Found issues:
> 
> - greenboot-rs-0.16.0-025b6e4.spec should be greenboot-rs.spec 
>   Read more:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
> - Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
>   Read more:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/
> #_scriptlets

These two issues ^^^ need to be double checked, else all the rest looks fine.

Comment 15 Sayan 2025-08-20 06:38:30 UTC
> > Found issues:
> > 
> > - greenboot-rs-0.16.0-025b6e4.spec should be greenboot-rs.spec 
> >   Read more:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

Fixed in last build:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2387553#c14


> > - Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
> >   Read more:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/
> > #_scriptlets

greenboot has the required scriptlets, greenboot-default-health-checks does not require any scriptlets as it installs only the health check scripts.

Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2025-08-20 06:56:30 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9448121
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387553-greenboot-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09448121-greenboot-rs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Systemd service file(s) in greenboot, greenboot-default-health-checks
  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 17 Peter Robinson 2025-08-20 13:54:08 UTC
LGTM Approved!

Comment 18 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-08-20 15:00:02 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/greenboot-rs

Comment 19 Fabio Valentini 2025-08-21 14:52:12 UTC
There's quite a few things from a Rust packaging POV that aren't really up to date in this spec file, it probably shouldn't have been approved as-is. I offered help with the packaging side of things in the discussion thread for the Change proposal, but I don't think anybody has reached out to the Rust SIG?

Comment 20 Sayan 2025-08-25 07:14:19 UTC
discussed and identified the the missing best practices, will push the changes shortly.

Comment 21 Sayan 2025-10-14 10:23:19 UTC
Fixes addressed in: 	0.16.0-3


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.