[Bug 2368438] New: Review Request: genimage - Flexible filesystem and disk image generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Bug ID: 2368438 Summary: Review Request: genimage - Flexible filesystem and disk image generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yaneti@declera.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250525.g04f835a-1.fc43.s... Description: genimage is a tool to generate multiple filesystem and flash/disk images from a given root filesystem tree. genimage is intended to be run in a fakeroot environment. It also supports creating flash/disk images out of different file-system images and files. Fedora Account System Username: yaneti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/pengutro | |nix/genimage/ Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9078157 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- - Recent snapshot
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250527.ge035be8-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2091694 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2091694&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9078157 to 9092127
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9092127 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ypsvlq@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com --- I am not currently sponsored as a packager so I can't assign/approve this, but am performing reviews to learn more about the guidelines and process.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - test suite is not run in %check
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 126 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/genimage/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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 [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 31928 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: genimage-18^20250527.ge035be8-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm genimage-18^20250527.ge035be8-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpc5lr8371')] checks: 32, packages: 2
genimage.src: E: spelling-error ('fakeroot', '%description -l en_US fakeroot -> fake root, fake-root, faker') genimage.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fakeroot', '%description -l en_US fakeroot -> fake root, fake-root, faker') genimage.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: genimage-debuginfo-18^20250527.ge035be8-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpb4tb2rst')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "genimage". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 2
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "genimage-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pengutronix/genimage//archive/e035be8e05bfe71755cda3b721d... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f8898fd1d17a6b535dbec0951576ed2c6bd845fa0aaf5e749a086503726007e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f8898fd1d17a6b535dbec0951576ed2c6bd845fa0aaf5e749a086503726007e
Requires -------- genimage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libconfuse.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- genimage: genimage genimage(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name genimage --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Thanks for looking into it
- make check and some additional BR for it
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250527.ge035be8-2.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2091799 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2091799&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9092127 to 9093814
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9093814 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #9 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- - Recent snapshot
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250603.gd816d0d-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2092839 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2092839&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9093814 to 9125998
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9125998 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #12 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- - Use more filesystem/block tools for tests and recommend them
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250603.gd816d0d-2.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2092863 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2092863&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9125998 to 9128209
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9128209 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #15 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- - Skip erofs-tools for now https://github.com/pengutronix/genimage/issues/299
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250603.gd816d0d-3.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2092864 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2092864&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9128209 to 9128280
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9128280 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #18 from Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com ---
# workaround for util-linux not shipping the mkcramfs old name export TMPPATH=`mktemp -d` ln -s /usr/bin/mkfs.cramfs $TMPPATH/mkcramfs export PATH=$PATH:$TMPPATH make check
This also affects the installed package, it would be good to get this changed upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #19 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- At runtime one can always override with --mkcramfs. But upstream actually agreed to rename the default tool name for cramfs. yay!
- New snapshot. mkcramfs workaround no longer required
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250611.g2593189-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ypsvlq@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2093697 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2093697&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9128280 to 9153853
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9153853 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #22 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- - New snapshot. erofs tests fixed upstream
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/genimage/genimage-18%5E20250619.g4e35f71-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094422 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094422&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9153853 to 9188564
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9188564 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Elaine Gibson ypsvlq@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 131 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/genimage/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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 [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 33891 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: genimage-18^20250619.g4e35f71-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm genimage-18^20250619.g4e35f71-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp3b5ft956')] checks: 32, packages: 2
genimage.src: E: spelling-error ('fakeroot', '%description -l en_US fakeroot -> fake root, fake-root, faker') genimage.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('fakeroot', '%description -l en_US fakeroot -> fake root, fake-root, faker') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: genimage-debuginfo-18^20250619.g4e35f71-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp1nwmt83c')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "genimage". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "genimage-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 2
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pengutronix/genimage//archive/4e35f7143782dc5ae159fbe6a09... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2029a1e9a3000ea89a9b2f468431ddd340fb3e5d47889abb9b79564ba84335f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2029a1e9a3000ea89a9b2f468431ddd340fb3e5d47889abb9b79564ba84335f6
Requires -------- genimage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libconfuse.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- genimage: genimage genimage(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name genimage --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/genimage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f (genimage-18^20250620.g3bfee1f-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f
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=2368438
--- Comment #29 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Thanks for the review again. If anyone is still interested I have a review request for the missing genext2fs part of the genimage functionality - bug 2374290
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368438
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-06-29 01:05:13
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-52ce62a66f (genimage-18^20250620.g3bfee1f-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com