https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lsm5@redhat.com)

--- Comment #2 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com --- btw. the build fails on f37:

qm.te:3:ERROR 'unknown class user_namespace' at token ';' on line 4371: allow qm_t self:user_namespace all_user_namespace_perms; #line 3 /usr/bin/checkmodule: error(s) encountered while parsing configuration make[1]: *** [/usr/share/selinux/devel/include/Makefile:157: tmp/qm.mod] Error 1

Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/containers/systemd/qm.container See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_configuration_files

Shouldn't this go to /etc/containers/systemd instead Lokesh? The package doesn't ship the LICENSE file.

===== 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. [ ]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jnovy/Downloads/2193400-qm/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/containers(containers-common, cri-o), /usr/share/containers/systemd(containers-common), /usr/share/selinux(pcp-selinux, selinux-policy), /usr/share/selinux/devel(tpm2-abrmd-selinux, container-selinux, selinux-policy-devel), /usr/share/selinux/devel/include(tpm2-abrmd- selinux, container-selinux, selinux-policy-devel), /usr/share/selinux/devel/include/services(container-selinux, selinux- policy-devel), /usr/share/selinux/packages(tpm2-abrmd-selinux, container-selinux, pcp-selinux, selinux-policy)

The package owns dirs belonging to other packages.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. The summary seems to be too long

[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: qm-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm qm-0.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmppkyz4ow3')] checks: 31, packages: 2

qm.src: W: unexpanded-macro dependency selinux-policy >= %_selinux_policy_version %_selinux_policy_version qm.src: W: unexpanded-macro dependency selinux-policy-devel >= %_selinux_policy_version %_selinux_policy_version qm.noarch: E: summary-too-long Containerized environment for running functionally safe Quality Management software qm.src: E: summary-too-long Containerized environment for running functionally safe Quality Management software qm.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/containers/systemd/qm.container qm.noarch: W: empty-%pre

Can you please remove the empty %pre?

============================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s ===========================================

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1

qm.noarch: E: summary-too-long Containerized environment for running functionally safe Quality Management software qm.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/containers/systemd/qm.container qm.noarch: W: empty-%pre 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/qm/archive/v0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef7d4b8e431d0d8c743689de2e4ce4d1bbb21fe19de5bb7c0df56e95e04c04c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef7d4b8e431d0d8c743689de2e4ce4d1bbb21fe19de5bb7c0df56e95e04c04c8

Requires -------- qm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/sh config(qm) hirte-agent libselinux-utils podman policycoreutils selinux-policy selinux-policy-base selinux-policy-targeted

Provides -------- qm: config(qm) qm

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2193400

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lsm5@redhat.com) |

--- Comment #4 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pagure.io/qm/raw/main/f/qm.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/qm/raw/main/f/SRPMS/qm-0.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

added license and other docs. Added Dan's suggestions.

PTAL Jindrich. Thanks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1962627 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1962627&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5890668 to 5891125

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com --- LGTM

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-12377c5b7a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-12377c5b7a

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-12377c5b7a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-12377c5b7a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-12377c5b7a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carl@redhat.com

--- Comment #14 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- The updates submitted to EPEL 9 (qm-0.1.0-1.el9 and qm-0.2.0-1.el9) have not been installable. Here is the error for the latest one.

Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides podman >= 2:4.5 needed by qm-0.2.0-1.el9.noarch - nothing provides hirte-agent needed by qm-0.2.0-1.el9.noarch

I've provided negative karma in bodhi, but it seems packit is configured to automatically submit new updates, which resets the karma. I'm concerned that without intervention packit will eventually submit an update that makes it through to EPEL 9 stable that is not installable. Please resolve the dependency issues.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77d64cf134 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-2023-77d64cf134

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(carl@redhat.com)

--- Comment #18 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- Carl, btw, what podman do you see installed on your env ?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(carl@redhat.com) |

--- Comment #20 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com ---

Carl, btw, what podman do you see installed on your env ?

RHEL 9 currently has podman-2:4.4.1-9.el9_2.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

--- Comment #22 from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@redhat.com --- Will be fixed with https://github.com/containers/qm/pull/59 .

Also, packit dist-git PRs are manually merged, so the bodhi updates getting set was totally on me. My bad.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

--- Comment #24 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- I'll point out that the solution in https://github.com/containers/qm/pull/62 (which obsoletes https://github.com/containers/qm/pull/59) does not follow the packaging guidelines.

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

Requires MUST be used if the dependency is required for the software to function correctly.

You can't just skip the dependency when it's not available, if it's truly a dependency. If it's not truly a dependency, then using a Recommends is probably a better choice.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pingou@pingoured. | |fr) |

--- Comment #26 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr --- This is correct, technically we need a newer podman (hirte is landing in epel9 as we speak). I've pinged the person who made the 4.5.0 build in stream to know what was blocking that build (seems to be a failed test), so hopefully this will be resolved soon.

I think we should bring the Requires back into the spec file (because they are valid) and indeed, only ask packit to submit a build, not the corresponding bodhi update until these dependencies are resolved. At least in our docs explaining how to use qm we can tell people to download the RPM from a trusted source (that they'll also have to use for podman 4.5.0 anyway).