Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/systemd-nitro-enclaves-rpm/refs/heads/main/systemd-nitro-enclaves.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/systemd-nitro-enclaves-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: systemd services for AWS Nitro Enclaves Host Management Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10163942 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10163942-systemd-nitro-enclaves/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10163943 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10163943-systemd-nitro-enclaves/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.
At a quick preliminary glance: It seems like, rather than "%global debug_package %{nil}", it would be better to make this a noarch package ("BuildArch: noarch"). If I understand correctly, the nitro-enclaves-allocator script is only intended for use via the systemd service, not for direct use by humans. In this case, it would be better installed in %{_libexecdir} instead of %{_bindir}. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_libexecdir. The ExecStart entry in the service file would have to be adjusted accordingly; this could be a downstream-only patch, if you like. You don’t need to number "Source0:"; you can just write "Source:" if you like. There is a typo in "${url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz". The initial "$" should be a "%".
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #4) > At a quick preliminary glance: > > It seems like, rather than "%global debug_package %{nil}", it would be > better to make this a noarch package ("BuildArch: noarch"). > > If I understand correctly, the nitro-enclaves-allocator script is only > intended for use via the systemd service, not for direct use by humans. In > this case, it would be better installed in %{_libexecdir} instead of > %{_bindir}. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_libexecdir. The > ExecStart entry in the service file would have to be adjusted accordingly; > this could be a downstream-only patch, if you like. > > You don’t need to number "Source0:"; you can just write "Source:" if you > like. > > There is a typo in "${url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz". The > initial "$" should be a "%". Thanks, I've made the relevant changes and resubmitted.
Created attachment 2132761 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10163943 to 10205637
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205637 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205637-systemd-nitro-enclaves/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd service file(s) in systemd-nitro-enclaves 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.
> Release: 1%{?dist} I'd suggest %autorelease > %global _description %{expand: > systemd services for AWS Nitro Enclaves.} > > %description %{_description} What's the purpose of this macro when it is only used once ? > %{_unitdir}/nitro-enclaves-allocator.service I think you'll also want a "%dir %{_unitdir}" so you (co-)own the dir, as there's no systemd dependency that guarantees ownership > %{_sysconfdir}/nitro_enclaves Needs to be marked %dir > %{_sysconfdir}/nitro_enclaves/allocator.yaml Needs to be marked %config > %changelog > * Fri Feb 20 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-1 > - Initial version for Fedora review. I'd suggest %autochangelog
(In reply to Daniel Berrangé from comment #11) > > %{_sysconfdir}/nitro_enclaves/allocator.yaml > > Needs to be marked %config …and probably %config(noreplace). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_configuration_files
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/systemd-nitro-enclaves-rpm/refs/heads/main/systemd-nitro-enclaves.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/systemd-nitro-enclaves-rpm/raw/refs/heads/main/systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-13.fc45.src.rpm Description: systemd services for AWS Nitro Enclaves Host Management Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Thanks! I've made the updates and resubmitted.
Created attachment 2133759 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10205637 to 10232710
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10232710 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10232710-systemd-nitro-enclaves/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 ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/berrange/2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd/system(systemd, yggdrasil-worker-package-manager, filesystem, plymouth, 389-ds-base, oidentd, regina-rexx, openqa- worker) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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 [-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 systemd-nitro-enclaves [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-13.fc45.noarch.rpm systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-13.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpogab411l')] checks: 32, packages: 2 systemd-nitro-enclaves.noarch: W: no-documentation systemd-nitro-enclaves.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 systemd-nitro-enclaves.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/virtee/systemd-nitro-enclaves/archive/v0.1.0/systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 11f00c21613dc43c55a998720870a9b91f7df8dfe88b806590bf968add86cfd1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 11f00c21613dc43c55a998720870a9b91f7df8dfe88b806590bf968add86cfd1 Requires -------- systemd-nitro-enclaves (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash config(systemd-nitro-enclaves) Provides -------- systemd-nitro-enclaves: config(systemd-nitro-enclaves) systemd-nitro-enclaves Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/berrange/2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/srpm/systemd-nitro-enclaves.spec 2026-03-17 06:38:47.287019461 -0400 +++ /home/berrange/2442188-systemd-nitro-enclaves/srpm-unpacked/systemd-nitro-enclaves.spec 2026-03-16 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 13; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %bcond check 1 @@ -44,3 +54,42 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Mar 17 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-13 +- Remove description macro + +* Tue Mar 17 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-12 +- address comments + +* Tue Mar 17 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-11 +- address comments + +* Wed Mar 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-10 +- fix archive URL + + +* Wed Mar 11 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-9 +- add systemd scriptlets + +* Tue Mar 10 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-8 +- Modify URL, build source from git release + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-7 +- Add RPM + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-6 +- specfile: Remove nitro-cli-config + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-5 +- specfile: Drop ExclusiveArch + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-4 +- specfile: Indicate git URL in VirTEE namespace + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-3 +- specfile: Mark /etc/nitro_enclaves directory + +* Sat Feb 21 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-2 +- Add source tar archive, update spec + +* Fri Feb 20 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-1 +- Initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2442188 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, Python, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> %bcond check 1 Unused, remove it > %build > # nothing Pointless, just remove it A few small points for upstream In the unit file > StandardOutput=journal > StandardError=journal > SyslogIdentifier=nitro-enclaves-allocator The syslog name is just hardcoding what is already the default, so that appears pointless. The StandardOutput/Error settings are force overriding the sysadmin's preference from /etc/systemd/system.conf. I don't see a compelling reason to not honour the systemd admin decided defaults. IOW, all three lines should be removed IMHO. The nitro-enclaves-allocator script has no stated license. It ought to have a SPDX-License-Identifier tag added. None of these are review blockers => approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd-nitro-enclaves
FEDORA-2026-7421a262b7 (systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-7421a262b7
FEDORA-2026-7421a262b7 (systemd-nitro-enclaves-0.1.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.