Remove fedora pkgs, add fedora 'compat' package

[ddstreet]

(Draft/RFC)

This sets up a compat components that tries to create some fedora->azl logic to handle any bootstrap-time dependencies or file/dir naming issues. Open for review and discussion but marked as draft.

[github-actions]

❌ Spec Review Failed

Type	Count
Errors	5
Warnings	2
Suggestions	1

🛠️ Debug locally: .github/workflows/scripts/README.md

azurelinux-fedora-compat.spec

❌ Errors (2)

• Subpackages release, release-variant, release-common, release-identity, repos, and gpg-keys are declared but have no corresponding %files sections, so RPM has no file list for those subpackages. Add %files sections (even if empty/meta) for each.
  • 📖 https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/
• Package declares License: MIT but no license text is shipped or marked with %license in any %files section; when license text is not present in sources, packagers must include a copy and mark it with %license.
  • 📖 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

⚠️ Warnings (1)

• Hardcoded /usr paths in %install and %files instead of RPM path macros (e.g., /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/bin). Guidelines strongly encourage macros and require consistent use for a given path.
  • 📖 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

azurelinux-release.spec

❌ Errors (3)

• identity-basic is independent (no Requires on base/common) but its %files lacks %license; independent subpackages must include applicable license texts.
  • 📖 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing
• identity-wsl Requires(meta) references azurelinux-release-container; it should reference azurelinux-release-wsl (copy/paste error relative to other variants).
• eol_date is set to placeholder 1900-01-01 and is emitted as SUPPORT_END in /etc/os-release; it should be set to a real end-of-life date.

⚠️ Warnings (1)

• Macro definitions use %define; guidelines prefer %global except rare cases requiring local scope.
  • 📖 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define

💡 Suggestions (1)

• Descriptions use 'a Azure Linux'; adjust to 'an Azure Linux' for American English grammar.
  • 📖 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description

📄 Raw JSON Report

{
  "spec_reviews": [
    {
      "spec_file": "base/comps/azurelinux-fedora-compat/azurelinux-fedora-compat.spec",
      "errors": [
        {
          "description": "Subpackages release, release-variant, release-common, release-identity, repos, and gpg-keys are declared but have no corresponding %files sections, so RPM has no file list for those subpackages. Add %files sections (even if empty/meta) for each.",
          "citation": "https://rpm-packaging-guide.github.io/",
          "line": 15
        },
        {
          "description": "Package declares License: MIT but no license text is shipped or marked with %license in any %files section; when license text is not present in sources, packagers must include a copy and mark it with %license.",
          "citation": "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text",
          "line": 69
        }
      ],
      "warnings": [
        {
          "description": "Hardcoded /usr paths in %install and %files instead of RPM path macros (e.g., /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/bin). Guidelines strongly encourage macros and require consistent use for a given path.",
          "citation": "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros",
          "line": 62
        }
      ],
      "suggestions": []
    },
    {
      "spec_file": "base/comps/azurelinux-release/azurelinux-release.spec",
      "errors": [
        {
          "description": "identity-basic is independent (no Requires on base/common) but its %files lacks %license; independent subpackages must include applicable license texts.",
          "citation": "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing",
          "line": 424
        },
        {
          "description": "identity-wsl Requires(meta) references azurelinux-release-container; it should reference azurelinux-release-wsl (copy/paste error relative to other variants).",
          "citation": "N/A",
          "line": 210
        },
        {
          "description": "eol_date is set to placeholder 1900-01-01 and is emitted as SUPPORT_END in /etc/os-release; it should be set to a real end-of-life date.",
          "citation": "N/A",
          "line": 9
        }
      ],
      "warnings": [
        {
          "description": "Macro definitions use %define; guidelines prefer %global except rare cases requiring local scope.",
          "citation": "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define",
          "line": 1
        }
      ],
      "suggestions": [
        {
          "description": "Descriptions use 'a Azure Linux'; adjust to 'an Azure Linux' for American English grammar.",
          "citation": "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description",
          "line": 102
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

[ddstreet]

this is probably no longer necessary after #16025, unless we do run into any build breakage due to packages still referencing/requiring anything fedora/redhat, and that isn't covered by existing bootstrapping workarounds

[ddstreetmicrosoft]

closing this, as i don't think we will need the compat pkg anymore.