In order for a new Docker Layered Image to be added to Fedora, the container layered image must first undertake a formal review much like the RPM Package Review process. The purpose of this formal review is to try to ensure that the container layered image meets the quality control requirements for Fedora.
Reviews are currently done for totally new container layered images, container layered image renames, old container layered images that were once deprecated returning to the collection, and containers merged from the old Fedora image repository (a registry in Docker vocabulary).
Container Layered Images are not required to share a 1:1 relationship with RPM Packages but can instead deliver multiple RPM Packages (such as dependencies) in order to distribute a fully functional container. However naming of the container should be based on the main service or software it aims to deliver.
Initially Fedora will be targeting the Docker container implementation but there are many and others will likely be incorporated in the future.
There are two roles in the review process, that of the contributor and that of the reviewer. In this document, we'll present both perspectives.
A Contributor is defined as someone who wants to submit (and maintain) a new Container Layered Image in Fedora. To become a contributor, you must follow the detailed instructions to Join the Package Maintainers.
As a Contributor, you should only be creating containers out of pre-existing software in the Fedora RPM repositories which adheres to the Package Naming Guidelines and Packaging Guidelines. Make note that the only software allowed in official Fedora Container Layered Images must be distributed via RPMs as part of the Fedora distribution. The Fedora Layered Image Build Service will reject images that are found to be built from sets of software not provided by Koji
- Put your Dockerfile, accompanying configuration files, and control scripts somewhere on the Internet where it can be directly downloaded (just HTTP(s), no registration pages or special download methods, please). If you have no access at all and would like space, please visit The sponsors ticket system, log in, and file a ticket with component "Initial package hosting request". You will be given access to Fedorapeople.
- Fill out a request for review in bugzilla. For guidance, a screenshot of a sample bugzilla request is available for review. Summary field needs to be in format of
Container Review Request:... If the
:is omitted the fedpkg tool's request-repo will error out.
- If you do not have any package or container layered image already in Fedora, this means you need a sponsor and to add FE-NEEDSPONSOR (Bugzilla id:177841) to the bugs being blocked by your review request. For more information read the How to get sponsored into the packager group page.
- Wait for someone to review your Dockerfile! At this point in the process, the fedora-review flag is blank, meaning that no reviewer is assigned.
- There may be comments from people that are not formally reviewing the package, they may add NotReady to the Whiteboard field, indication that the review request is not yet ready, because of some issues they report. After you have addressed them, please post the URLs to the updated Dockerfile and associated files and remove it from the Whiteboard. It is expected that you will respond to commentary, including updating your submission to address it; if you do not, your ticket will be closed.
- A reviewer takes on the task of reviewing your package. They will set the fedora-review flag to ?
- The reviewer will review your Dockerfile. You should fix any blockers that the reviewer identifies. Once the reviewer is happy with the package, the fedora-review flag will be set to +, indicating that the package has passed review.
- At this point, you need to make an SCM admin request for your newly approved Layered Image. If you have not yet been sponsored, you will not be able to progress past this point. (You will need to make sure to request the
containernamespace in PackageDB)
- Checkout the package using "fedpkg clone container/<container-name>" do a final check of spec file tags, etc.
- When this is complete, you can add relevant container files into the SCM. Required files should be:
* Dockerfile * help.md file
- Request a build by running "fedpkg container-build".
- Repeat the process for other branches you may have requested. (NOTE: The FROM line in the Dockerfile for each branch will need to reflect which Fedora release distgit branch it is in or else the builds will collide in koji)
- You should make sure the review ticket is closed. You are welcome to close it once the Container Layered Image has been built on the requested branches, or if you built for one of the Fedora release branches you can ask Bodhi to close the ticket for you when it completes the process. If you close the ticket yourself, use NEXTRELEASE as the resolution.
You do not need to go through the review process again for subsequent Container Layered Image changes for this Layered Image.
The Reviewer is the person who chooses to review a package.
The Reviewer can be any Fedora account holder who is a member of the packager group. (If the Contributor is not yet sponsored, the review can still proceed to completion but they will need to find a sponsor at some point.)
- Search for a review request that needs a reviewer: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ (fedora-review flag is blank or the bug is assigned to firstname.lastname@example.org)
- If you notice some issues that need to be solved before you want to start a formal review, add these issues in a comment and set the Whiteboard of the bug to contain NotReady. This helps other possible reviewers to notice that the review request is not yet ready for further review action.
- if you want to formally review the Dockerfile, set the fedora-review flag to ? and assign the bug to yourself.
- Review the package ...
- Include the text of your review in a comment in the ticket. For easy readability, simply use a regular comment instead of an attachment.
- Take one of the following actions:
- ACCEPT - If the container layered image is good, set the fedora-review flag to +
- FAIL, LEGAL - If the container layered image is legally risky for whatever reason (known patent or copyright infringement, trademark concerns) close the bug WONTFIX and leave an appropriate comment (i.e. we don't ship mp3, so stop submitting it). Set the fedora-review flag to -, and have the review ticket block FE-Legal.
- FAIL, OTHER - If the container layered image is just way off or unsuitable for some other reason, and there is no simple fix, then close the bug WONTFIX and leave an appropriate comment (i.e. we don't package pornography for redistribution, sorry. Or, this isn't a specfile, it's a McDonald's menu, sorry.) Set the fedora-review flag to -.
- NEEDSWORK - Anything that isn't explicitly failed should be left open while the submitter and reviewer work together to fix any potential issues. Mark the bug as NEEDINFO while waiting for the reviewer to respond to improvement requests; this makes it easier for reviewers to find open reviews which require their input.
- Once a package is flagged as fedora-review + (or -), the Reviewer's job is done although they may be called upon to assist the Contributor with the import/build/update process and to ensure that the Contributor closes the ticket out when the process is complete.
Definitions for fedora-review Flag Settings
|fedora-review||(BLANK)||Container Needs Review|
|fedora-review||?||Container Under Review|
|fedora-review||-||Container Failed Review, dropped for legal or other issues.|
Special blocker tickets
There are a few tickets which can be placed in the "Blocks" field to indicate specific ticket statuses:
|FE-NEEDSPONSOR||The submitter requires a sponsor; the review should only be done by a sponsor.|
|FE-DEADREVIEW||The review has been closed out because the submitter has left; users looking for Container to submit may find some possibilities in these dead tickets.|
|FE-Legal||The Container is currently awaiting review by the legal team.|
To save time for reviewers, the page at http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html will hide certain tickets which are not reviewable. The Whiteboard field can be used to mark a ticket with various additional bits of status which will cause it to be hidden or displayed differently. (Note: The Package nomenclature is carried over here and you will want to filter for "Container Review")
|NotReady||The Container is not yet ready for review. It is possible to open a review ticket, mark it as NotReady, and continue to work on it until it's ready to be seen by a reviewer.|
|BuildFails||The Container fails to build.|
|AwaitingSubmitter||The Container review is stalled and cannot proceed without input from the submitter.|
|Trivial||The Container is trivial to review. See below.|
The "Trivial" status is intended to indicate Containers which, as an aid to new reviewers, are especially uncomplicated and easy to review. A ticket should not be marked as being trivial unless:
- The Container is known to build and a link to a scratch build is included.
- The ticket explains any rpmlint output which is present.
- The spec contains nothing which is unnecessary in modern Fedora (such as BuildRoot:, a %clean section or %defattr).
- The spec is free from excessive or complicated macro usage.
- The spec uses only the least complicated scriptlets which are taken directly from the Packaging:ScriptletSnippets page.
- The Container contains no daemons.
- The Container is not especially security sensitive.
- The code has undergone a thorough inspection for licensing issues. Anomalies which would be found by licensecheck should be explained.
In short, this should be reserved only for those tickets which should be easily approachable by someone doing their first Container review.
Tracking of Container Requests
The cached Package Review Tracker provides various review-related reports and a simple way to search for reviews by package name or reporter name or others. (Note: The Package nomenclature is carried over here and you will want to filter for "Container Review")