https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Bug ID: 2231107 Summary: Review Request: ansible-collection-awx-awx - AWX ansible collection Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aheath1992@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... Description: AWX ansible collection in a RPM format Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |maxwell@gtmx.me
--- Comment #1 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- Thanks for submitting this! I have some feedback that I can write down later. To start with, take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ansible_collection... (see the example spec for how to actually apply this) and please remove the code for running tests that don't exist.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #2 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- -Summary: Ansible modules and plugins for working with Awx +Summary: Ansible modules and plugins for working with AWX
---
echo $(ls -l)
Remove or replace with plain `ls -l`.
---
-cd %{_builddir}/awx-%{version}/awx_collection_build/ +cd awx_collection_build
---
License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0
needs a short comment explaining the license breakdown.
---
%description -ansible-collection-awx-awx provides the Awx.Awx Ansible +ansible-collection-awx-awx provides the awx.awx Ansible
---
%changelog * Fri Jul 28 2023 Andrew H aheath1992@gmail.com - 22.6.0-1 -- Inital Package +- Initial Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Heath aheath1992@gmail.com --- Updated based on recommendations and referencing other ansible-collection packages
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... Description: AWX ansible collection in a RPM format Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1983041 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1983041&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6263915 to 6266611
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@scrye.com CC| |kevin@scrye.com
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- I'll review this. Look for a full review in a bit...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Go ahead and remove the cd on line 42 (it's there but commented currently?) (It's also causing 2 rpmlint warnings about % in a comment)
- The license for the collection looks like it's GPLv3 only? ./awx_collection/galaxy.yml: - GPL-3.0-only Not GPL 3.0 or later? Or am I missing something?
- Might include a comment for the patch? Pointing to the guidelines/explaining why it's there?
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Apache License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Python License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "ISC License", "Public domain", "MIT License and/or Public domain", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2015)", "*No copyright* Zope Public License 2.1", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 0-Clause License". 3087 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/2231107-ansible- collection-awx-awx/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3240 bytes in 1 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ansible-collection-awx-awx-22.6.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm ansible-collection-awx-awx-22.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm =================================== rpmlint session starts =================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmplh60uov2')] checks: 31, packages: 2
ansible-collection-awx-awx.spec:42: W: macro-in-comment %{_builddir} ansible-collection-awx-awx.spec:42: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ==== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ansible/awx/archive/22.6.0/awx-22.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed993a1d578f5136d40db8a520f5a4592b4143582bf3b0b0cfee9b0c1a740743 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed993a1d578f5136d40db8a520f5a4592b4143582bf3b0b0cfee9b0c1a740743
Requires -------- ansible-collection-awx-awx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible-core or (ansible < 2.10.0 with ansible >= 2.9.10))
Provides -------- ansible-collection-awx-awx: ansible-collection(awx.awx) ansible-collection-awx-awx
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2231107 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Python, Java, Perl, C/C++, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Heath aheath1992@gmail.com --- Updated based on recommendations and upgraded to 22.7.0 as that has been released in upstream
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... Description: AWX ansible collection in a RPM format Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- ok, that looks pretty good. I do see you removed:
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist requests}
Why was that in there and why was it removed?
Maxwell: Did you have some further feedback before I approve this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Heath aheath1992@gmail.com --- I think it was added when I was coping the spec file for community-docker and added it, but after further review it was not needed so I removed it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #10 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- This looks pretty good to me. A couple minor comments:
- Please remove the unit test stuff entirely. The upstream project does not use ansible-test to run collection unit tests. Having it there but disabled is confusing and just adds clutter to the specfile.
- You have a bunch of trailing spaces in the second line of %description.
- There are also trailing spaces in %install.
- You should use `%doc awx_collection_build/README.md` instead of `%doc README.md`. We're interested in the collection not AWX itself.
- The License should be `GPL-3.0-or-later` not `GPL-3.0-only`. The collection's README says:
All content in this folder is licensed under the same license as Ansible, which is the same as the license that applied before the split into an independent collection.
Ansible is licensed under `GPL-3.0-or-later`, and some of the files have GPLv3+ headers.
Thanks for working on this, Andrew, and thanks for reviewing this, Kevin!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Heath aheath1992@gmail.com --- Updated based on recommendations
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... Description: AWX ansible collection in a RPM format Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #12 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- ``` %if %{with tests/units} BuildRequires: ansible-packaging-tests %endif ```
still needs to be removed. Other than that, this looks good to me. Thanks! On import, feel free to add me as a co-admin.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Heath aheath1992@gmail.com --- Removed that last of the testing, sorry for missing that
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/aheath1992/public_git/ansible-collection-awx-a... Description: AWX ansible collection in a RPM format Fedora Account System Username: aheath1992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #10)
- The License should be `GPL-3.0-or-later` not `GPL-3.0-only`. The
collection's README says:
All content in this folder is licensed under the same license as Ansible, which is the same as the license that applied before the split into an independent collection.
Ansible is licensed under `GPL-3.0-or-later`, and some of the files have GPLv3+ headers.
yes, thats all true, but also the galaxy file has 'GPL-3.0-only' in it. Now, that sounds like it might be a mistake or thinko, but I still think it's worth clarifying with upstream... perhaps they intend to release the collection part GPL-3.0-only and the rest of awx or later? Dunno, but worth asking about I think...
In any case it doesn't matter in the end right now, as there's no 'or later' in existance, so this package is APPROVED, but it would be good to clarify that with upstream before it matters. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #15 from Maxwell G maxwell@gtmx.me --- Thanks everyone!
I'll open an issue upstream about the licensing question. If it's indeed GPL-3.0-only, we (the Ansible Community Steering Committee) may have to kick it out of the ansible package, as we require collections to be licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later or a compatible license. However, it seems like the License should be `GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-2-Clause`, as https://github.com/ansible/awx/blob/devel/awx_collection/plugins/module_util... is licensed under BSD-2-Clause.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-awx-awx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b
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=2231107
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810 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-2023-6fb281c810
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=2231107
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-fe4eb49a81 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-fe4eb49a81
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=2231107
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1
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=2231107
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-09-24 00:16:38
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-7ca78fb23b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4d3bba0bb1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6fb281c810 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231107
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-fe4eb49a81 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com