Bug 2038591

Thanks for packaging this up. I had it on my list for next week... :)

I'll go ahead and review, look for a review in a few.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

I don't see any issues here, this package is APPROVED. 

Can you make myself and dmsimard co-maintainers? 

Thanks again for getting to this...

===== 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/2038591-ansible-
     packaging/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs,
     /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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:


Requires
--------
ansible-packaging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3



Provides
--------
ansible-packaging:
    ansible-packaging



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2038591
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, C/C++, Perl, Java, fonts, PHP, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits, the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing. Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I don't know the full context surrounding this decision.

The other problem is that this package does not depend on any package that provides /usr/bin/ansible-galaxy. Currently, every supported Fedora version has both `ansible` 2.9 and `ansible-core` (they conflict with each other), but Epel 7 and 8 only have the former. As you know, EL 9 itself already contains `ansible-core`. I think this package should depend on ansible-core wherever possible. Then, we can have collections BR `ansible-packaging` and get rid of the current `BuildRequires:  (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-core >= 2.11.0)` which defaults to ansible. I would suggest something like this:

```
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 34 || 0%{?rhel} >= 9
Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
%else
Requires: ansible >= 2.9.10
```

We will also need to address the generated requires.

[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=rawhide

(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the
> ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because
> that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits,
> the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing.
> Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses
> while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I
> don't know the full context surrounding this decision.

He contributed those and did not add a "and MIT" or note that they were MIT, so I thought it was pretty clear that he wanted them to be contributed under GPLv3+ like ansible. 
I agree we can confirm with him tho... 
 
> The other problem is that this package does not depend on any package that
> provides /usr/bin/ansible-galaxy. Currently, every supported Fedora version

But it doesn't need to? The end collection does to build, but this is just echoing out macros...

> has both `ansible` 2.9 and `ansible-core` (they conflict with each other),
> but Epel 7 and 8 only have the former. As you know, EL 9 itself already
> contains `ansible-core`. I think this package should depend on ansible-core
> wherever possible. Then, we can have collections BR `ansible-packaging` and
> get rid of the current `BuildRequires:  (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-core
> >= 2.11.0)` which defaults to ansible. I would suggest something like this:
> 
> ```
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 34 || 0%{?rhel} >= 9
> Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
> %else
> Requires: ansible >= 2.9.10
> ```

I suppose. I was just going to suggest dealing with that after 2.9.x goes EOL and dropping it then. 

> We will also need to address the generated requires.
> 
> [1]:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/
> db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=rawhide

Sure. All at the same time I would hope.

(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4)
> (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> > Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the
> > ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because
> > that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits,
> > the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing.
> > Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses
> > while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I
> > don't know the full context surrounding this decision.
> 
> He contributed those and did not add a "and MIT" or note that they were MIT,
> so I thought it was pretty clear that he wanted them to be contributed under
> GPLv3+ like ansible. 
> I agree we can confirm with him tho... 
>  


Easy enough to check... Igor, do you want these MIT licensed instead or GPLv3+ as Ansible does?

> > The other problem is that this package does not depend on any package that
> > provides /usr/bin/ansible-galaxy. Currently, every supported Fedora version
> 
> But it doesn't need to? The end collection does to build, but this is just
> echoing out macros...
> 
> > has both `ansible` 2.9 and `ansible-core` (they conflict with each other),
> > but Epel 7 and 8 only have the former. As you know, EL 9 itself already
> > contains `ansible-core`. I think this package should depend on ansible-core
> > wherever possible. Then, we can have collections BR `ansible-packaging` and
> > get rid of the current `BuildRequires:  (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-core
> > >= 2.11.0)` which defaults to ansible. I would suggest something like this:
> > 
> > ```
> > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 34 || 0%{?rhel} >= 9
> > Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
> > %else
> > Requires: ansible >= 2.9.10
> > ```
> 
> I suppose. I was just going to suggest dealing with that after 2.9.x goes
> EOL and dropping it then. 
> 
> > We will also need to address the generated requires.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/
> > db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=rawhide
> 
> Sure. All at the same time I would hope.

I deliberately did not include all that stuff until we figure out what we want to do here.

Thanks for packaging and reviewing, Neal and Kevin! Sorry for stepping on your toes a little bit :).

(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4)
> (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> > Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the
> > ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because
> > that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits,
> > the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing.
> > Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses
> > while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I
> > don't know the full context surrounding this decision.
> 
> He contributed those and did not add a "and MIT" or note that they were MIT,
> so I thought it was pretty clear that he wanted them to be contributed under
> GPLv3+ like ansible. 
> I agree we can confirm with him tho... 

That's fair enough.

> > The other problem is that this package does not depend on any package that
> > provides /usr/bin/ansible-galaxy. Currently, every supported Fedora version
> 
> But it doesn't need to? The end collection does to build, but this is just
> echoing out macros...

Technically, it doesn't need to, but this is how the other `*-packaging` work.

> > has both `ansible` 2.9 and `ansible-core` (they conflict with each other),
> > but Epel 7 and 8 only have the former. As you know, EL 9 itself already
> > contains `ansible-core`. I think this package should depend on ansible-core
> > wherever possible. Then, we can have collections BR `ansible-packaging` and
> > get rid of the current `BuildRequires:  (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-core
> > >= 2.11.0)` which defaults to ansible. I would suggest something like this:
> > 
> > ```
> > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 34 || 0%{?rhel} >= 9
> > Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
> > %else
> > Requires: ansible >= 2.9.10
> > ```
> 
> I suppose. I was just going to suggest dealing with that after 2.9.x goes
> EOL and dropping it then. 
> 
> > We will also need to address the generated requires.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/
> > db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=rawhide
> 
> Sure. All at the same time I would hope.

You're right. It still works and will continue to work, because `ansible` 5.0 depends on `ansible-core`. However, I think it will be easier to just move all the dependent packages to `ansible-packaging` now and only deal with this once.

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
> (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> > > Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the
> > > ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because
> > > that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits,
> > > the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing.
> > > Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses
> > > while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I
> > > don't know the full context surrounding this decision.
> > 
> > He contributed those and did not add a "and MIT" or note that they were MIT,
> > so I thought it was pretty clear that he wanted them to be contributed under
> > GPLv3+ like ansible. 
> > I agree we can confirm with him tho... 
> >  
> 
> 
> Easy enough to check... Igor, do you want these MIT licensed instead or
> GPLv3+ as Ansible does?

I'm fine with either :)

I'd prefer to keep it GPLv3+, so I'll just add license headers for that.

Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/40661

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-packaging

Please add me (@gotmax23) as a co-maintainer, as well.

FEDORA-2022-df09b00e30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-df09b00e30

FEDORA-2022-0cde6e8a43 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cde6e8a43

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-28b94ba9bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-28b94ba9bb

FEDORA-2022-df09b00e30 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-0cde6e8a43 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-28b94ba9bb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.