Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/grub2-confidential-computing.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: This is a GRUB image for use in Confidential Computing Environments. Fedora Account System Username: lsandova
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10843658 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2513599-grub2-confidential-computing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10843658-grub2-confidential-computing/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.
I will take this review. If reviewing a GAP package is okay with you, I could use a review of bug 2516181. The spec file is really quite simple.
fedora-review says: ERROR: 'Error HTTP Error 404: Not Found downloading https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc45.src.rpm' (logs in /home/jamesjer/.cache/fedora-review.log) And visiting this URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/ returns an HTTP 404. What is the right URL for the spec file and source RPM?
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > I will take this review. If reviewing a GAP package is okay with you, I > could use a review of bug 2516181. The spec file is really quite simple. For sure, I review it, thanks.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > fedora-review says: > > ERROR: 'Error HTTP Error 404: Not Found downloading > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2- > confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2. > fc45.src.rpm' (logs in /home/jamesjer/.cache/fedora-review.log) > > And visiting this URL: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2- > confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10843598/ > > returns an HTTP 404. What is the right URL for the spec file and source RPM? Sorry for the trouble Jerry, take a look on this folder https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/ which has the .src.rpm and .spec but look at the former for see sources.
After downloading the spec file and the srpm (it would have been better if you had posted new Spec URL and SRPM URL lines): $ fedora-review -n grub2-confidential-computing -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 INFO: Processing local files: grub2-confidential-computing INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /home/jamesjer/review INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///home/jamesjer/review/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: file:///home/jamesjer/review/grub2-confidential-computing.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/jamesjer/review/review-grub2-confidential-computing error: Unable to open /home/jamesjer/rpmbuild/SOURCES/grub2-confidential-computing.macros: No such file or directory ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in /home/jamesjer/.cache/fedora-review.log) Exception ignored while flushing sys.stdout: AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush' $ fedora-review --copr-build https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 INFO: Processing COPR build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/ ERROR: Copr build did not succeed, state=failed If you look at https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/builder-live.log.gz, you will see the same problems with the COPR build. The issue is the first 2 lines of the spec file: Source0: grub2-confidential-computing.macros %include %{SOURCE0} That %include directive presumes that the macros file is available at SRPM building time, which it isn't on my machine. Koji will have the same problem. With the package in its current form, a koji build will fail the SRPM building step. How is the actual build supposed to work? Note that there is no binary RPM in that COPR directory, indicating that the build did not succeed.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6) > After downloading the spec file and the srpm (it would have been better if > you had posted new Spec URL and SRPM URL lines): > > $ fedora-review -n grub2-confidential-computing -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > INFO: Processing local files: grub2-confidential-computing > INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in > /home/jamesjer/review > INFO: --> SRPM url: > file:///home/jamesjer/review/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.src.rpm > INFO: --> Spec url: > file:///home/jamesjer/review/grub2-confidential-computing.spec > INFO: Using review directory: > /home/jamesjer/review/review-grub2-confidential-computing > error: Unable to open > /home/jamesjer/rpmbuild/SOURCES/grub2-confidential-computing.macros: No such > file or directory > ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in > /home/jamesjer/.cache/fedora-review.log) > Exception ignored while flushing sys.stdout: > AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush' > $ fedora-review --copr-build > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2- > confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > INFO: Processing COPR build: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2- > confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/ > ERROR: Copr build did not succeed, state=failed > > If you look at > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lsandova/grub2- > confidential-computing/srpm-builds/10932205/builder-live.log.gz, you will > see the same problems with the COPR build. The issue is the first 2 lines > of the spec file: > > Source0: grub2-confidential-computing.macros > %include %{SOURCE0} > > That %include directive presumes that the macros file is available at SRPM > building time, which it isn't on my machine. Koji will have the same > problem. With the package in its current form, a koji build will fail the > SRPM building step. > > How is the actual build supposed to work? Note that there is no binary RPM > in that COPR directory, indicating that the build did not succeed. I have done several things so you can actually proceed - Avoided embedding the macros file (macros file was small, so no need to place globals in a separate file) otherwise we observe that failure (I was not aware of it) - place the spec and srpm in fedorapeople, so we do not need to deal with copr links https://lsandova.fedorapeople.org/grub2-confidential-computing/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.src.rpm https://lsandova.fedorapeople.org/grub2-confidential-computing/grub2-confidential-computing.spec To double check, I have ran the `fedora-review` tool locally and seems to be working =====================8<==================== $ fedora-review -n grub2-confidential-computing -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 INFO: Processing local files: grub2-confidential-computing INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3 INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3/grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: file:///tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3/grub2-confidential-computing.spec INFO: Using review directory: /tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3/review-grub2-confidential-computing INFO: No upstream for (Source0): sbat.csv.in INFO: No upstream for (Source1): grub_prefix_embedded.cfg INFO: No upstream for (Source2): grub.cfg INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3/review-grub2-confidential-computing/results INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/chroot-aliases.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) Removed 0 files, 0 directories (total of 0 B). 0 errors occurred. INFO: Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag Review template in: /tmp/tmp.URhkaAYTG3/review-grub2-confidential-computing/review.txt fedora-review is automated tool, but *YOU* are responsible for manually reviewing the results and finishing the review. Do not just copy-paste the results without understanding them. =====================8<==================== One more thing: The copr build is here in case you need it https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lsandova/grub2-confidential-computing/build/10940681/
I noted a few issues, but none of them are serious enough to delay this review further. This package is APPROVED. Please address the issues below when you import the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - I guess the epoch is set to match grub2? I ask because ordinarily a new package would not need to set an epoch. If so, a comment in the spec file to that effect would be good, so future maintainers know they need to keep the two Epoch fields in sync. - And I suppose the License is also set to match grub2? None of the files in this package actually name a license. Here again, a comment in the spec file would be good so future maintainers know they need to keep the two License fields in sync. - The %changelog versions are missing the Epoch, leading to the incoherent-version-in-changelog warnings from rpmlint below. The entries should list 1:1-1 and 1:1-2 as the versions. (And, really, "Sigh." is not a terribly helpful changelog entry. Might as well omit it, from my POV.) - To prevent these rpmlint warnings: grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %install grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %files double the % signs in the comment on line 43: ... %%install & %%files ... ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2513599-grub2-confidential- computing/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/efi(systemd-boot- ia32, systemd-boot-x64, systemd-boot-aa64) Given the nature of these packages, this is not an issue. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Except changelog entries are missing the Epoch. See above. [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 [x]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: 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]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.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/tmpqb1con_h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.spec: W: no-%check-section grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %install grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %files grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-2 ['1:1-2.fc46', '1:1-2'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 6 warnings, 8 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 1 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-2 ['1:1-2.fc46', '1:1-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- grub2-confidential-computing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- grub2-confidential-computing: grub2-confidential-computing grub2-confidential-computing(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2513599 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Ruby, Haskell, Java, Perl, Python, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks Jerry for your time. I have made the changes you are suggestion and temporally you can see it here https://github.com/lsandov1/grub2-confidential-computing/commit/be9da4e91b5d87e6d0f35b69d5d0c028e3fbe4f6 Just one thing about the %changelog: I have included the %autochangelog but rpmlint is complaining with the following grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.spec: W: no-%check-section grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %install grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %files grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-2 ['1:1-2.fc46', '1:1-2'] <<<====== HERE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 6 warnings, 8 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.7 s Perhaps including %autochangelog is just a bad idea? Also, no idea about the non-standard-dir-perm, perhaps 700 permission is unique among /usr dirs?
The problem is that you are manually setting Release and using %autochangelog. That's tricky. You should really use %autorelease too if you are going to use %autochangelog. The grub2-efi-x64 package creates /usr/lib/efi with 0755 permissions. This package and that one should really agree on the permissions that /usr/lib/efi should have. Granted, the actual *files* that grub2-efi installs under /usr/lib/efi all have permission 0600 or 0700, so perhaps there is no point in making the directories world-readable. Rpmlint warns about permissions that don't let users see the files or directories, because most packages are user-facing. The grub packages are not user-facing, so I think it is perfectly normal for them to install files and directories that do not let users read them.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #10) > The problem is that you are manually setting Release and using > %autochangelog. That's tricky. You should really use %autorelease too if you > are going to use %autochangelog. > > The grub2-efi-x64 package creates /usr/lib/efi with 0755 permissions. This > package and that one should really agree on the permissions that > /usr/lib/efi should have. Granted, the actual *files* that grub2-efi > installs under /usr/lib/efi all have permission 0600 or 0700, so perhaps > there is no point in making the directories world-readable. Agree, there is no point. However I just realized that these directories are world-readable in grub2 so to align with this package, I have s/700/755 except the leaf folder. More info below. > > Rpmlint warns about permissions that don't let users see the files or > directories, because most packages are user-facing. The grub packages are > not user-facing, so I think it is perfectly normal for them to install files > and directories that do not let users read them. I have included the %autorelease macro. On the permissions area, to support my comment above, look at the current permissions for grub2 and grub2-confidential-computing based on my latest changes. As you notice, all readable except the fedora one, the same as grub2 (although grub2 is not tracking several folders and this is wrong but being discussed/fixed in a separate bz) [root@fedora ~]# rpm -qlv grub2-efi-x64 | grep /usr/lib/efi drwx------ 2 root root 0 Aug 20 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2/1:2.12-78.fc46/EFI/fedora -rw------- 1 root root 0 Aug 20 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2/1:2.12-78.fc46/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg -rwx------ 1 root root 4149672 Aug 20 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2/1:2.12-78.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi [root@fedora ~]# rpm -qlv grub2-confidential-computing | grep /usr/lib/efi/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 15 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 15 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Sep 15 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI drwx------ 2 root root 0 Sep 15 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI/fedora -rwx------ 1 root root 3512056 Sep 15 02:00 /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi Now rpmlint looks like this grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-7.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s This is the latest changes based on feedback https://github.com/lsandov1/grub2-confidential-computing/commit/a72af73c1c377d887e1c247bef57de0090bb7d78
Yes, I agree that this is correct. And I already approved the package, so you can proceed when you wish.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #12) > Yes, I agree that this is correct. And I already approved the package, so > you can proceed when you wish. Jerry we decided that the package name is not the best fit for the project, instead we want grub-cc which fits better for the desired team (least friction on their scripting) However the `fedpkg request-repo` tool is failing (as expected I believe) $ fedpkg request-repo grub-cc <this bz ID> Could not execute request_repo: The package in the Bugzilla bug "grub2-confidential-computing" doesn't match the one provided "grub-cc" which would be the best way to proceed here?
Yes, the tool checks that the package name on the bug matches the name of the repo to create. You will have to edit the name of this bug to match.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub-cc Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-28adaff099 (grub-cc-1-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-28adaff099
FEDORA-2026-28adaff099 (grub-cc-1-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.