[Bug 2040537] New: Review Request: ansible-collection-community-mysql - ansible-collection-community-mysql package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
Bug ID: 2040537 Summary: Review Request: ansible-collection-community-mysql - ansible-collection-community-mysql package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pabuffon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq/blob/master/f/ansibl... SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq/blob/master/f/ansibl... Description: The ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq package Fedora Account System Username: petebuffon
This is my first ticket and I will need a sponsor. I have been working with nirik on a Fedora Infra issue that requires this package to be incorporated into Fedora/EPEL: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8167.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@scrye.com Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |kevin@scrye.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Hey, I'll look at reviewing this package and sponsoring you. :)
One quick thing, you should now be able to replace the BuildRequires with "ansible-packaging"
Look for a review in a bit...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Oh, and the title of the bug is wrong... this is not mysql?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ansible-collection-communit |ansible-collection-communit |y-mysql - |y-rabbitmq package - The |ansible-collection-communit |ansible-collection-communit |y-mysql package |y-rabbitmq package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #3 from petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com --- Thanks!
I was copy/pasting and mixed in the mysql. Fixed the title of the bug.
Do you have a link for the syntax required for "ansible-packaging"?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Just replace the BuildRequires: (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-base >= 2.10.0) line with BuildRequires: ansible-packaging
we moved the generator and macros into that package...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #5 from petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com --- I made the change in the spec file to include ansible-packaging and rebuilt the source rpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Sorry for the long delay here. ;(
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
- I don't see a .github dir, so the rm -rv fails. There does seem to be however a .azure-pipelines dir. Can you add .azure-pipelines to be removed, and also add a '-f' to it so it doesn't fail the build? Or adjust it to only dirs that exist there.
- Not a blocker, but might be worth looking to see if tests could be run in %check.
I don't see any other blockers here, so this package is APPROVED provided you fix the build issue above. ;)
I'd be happy to co-maintain...
===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 116 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/2040537-ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq/review- ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/community(ansible- collection-community-general, ansible-collection-community-mysql, ansible-collection-community-kubernetes) [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.rabbitmq/archive/1.1.0/ansi... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : adecb40eb8d7baddfd95244d17f17d613667b97a1b6c8c7c3eaf49d3223481bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : adecb40eb8d7baddfd95244d17f17d613667b97a1b6c8c7c3eaf49d3223481bb
Requires -------- ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible >= 2.9.0 or ansible-core >= 2.11.0)
Provides -------- ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq: ansible-collection(community.rabbitmq) ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, R, Java, PHP, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #7 from petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com --- Alright I removed the .azure-pipelines dir.
I've been looking into running the supplied tests in %check. I've been able to get the integration and units tests to pass (just not the sanity tests) using ansible-test integration --docker (with alias docker=podman). Both these sets of tests fail when they are run without a container.
I've been building locally on my Fedora machine with fedpkg --release rawhide local. I'm I heading in the right direction?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- The tests are a nice to have... if they can't work in this context, oh well. I wouldn't spend too much time on it... in the mean time you could import/build without them and add them later when/if you get them working. ;)
Yeha, a local build should be a local mock, which should be very similar to koji. You could also do scratch builds, which are in koji... koji build --scratch f36 foo.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #9 from petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com --- Okay for now I removed the tests and built the package locally with mock, which should be good to go.
Looking at the community rabbitmq github, I believe they made their tests using Ubuntu 20.04, which might explain why the tests only pass when run within Podman.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #10 from petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com --- I tried fedpkg request-repo ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq 2040537 and I got:
Could not execute request_repo: The package in the Bugzilla bug "ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq package" doesn't match the one provided "ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq"
Maybe this happened because I did one final clean up commit to remove the rest of the lines about testing? Does the package need to be approved again?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ansible-collection-communit |ansible-collection-communit |y-rabbitmq package - The |y-rabbitmq - The |ansible-collection-communit |ansible-collection-communit |y-rabbitmq package |y-rabbitmq package
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- It's because of the word 'package' in the bug summary. :) Removing it...
You can retry now...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040537
petebuffon pabuffon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2022-03-02 17:38:03
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com