Bug 1313477

My main concern so far is with licensing and requires (ansible + pythonX-devel).

I haven't verified that the package works properly.

rpmlint seems to think two scripts need to be 755 instead of 644.



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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 MIT (spec) != ASL 2.0 (LICENSE)
 Also, some files seem to be GPLv3+:
  library/ceph_facts
  plugins/actions/config_template.py
  roles/ceph-common/plugins/actions/config_template.py
 They come from ansible proper.
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
  NB: I think it needs "Requires: ansible"
  See:
   http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ansible-openstack-modules.git/tree/ansible-openstack-modules.spec
  Also python2-devel and / or python3-devel.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
  Yes, but see Licensing above.
[?]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
 However, it it close enough to latest for me to say "pass".
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
ceph-ansible.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ceph-ansible/library/ceph_facts 644 /usr/bin/python
ceph-ansible.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ceph-ansible/roles/ceph-mon/files/precise/92-ceph 644 /bin/bash
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

Thanks François, here's a new version with a corrected License field.

* Mon Mar 07 2016 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer> - 1.0.1-1
- Update to latest upstream release
- Correct License field (rhbz#1313477)

Spec URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible.spec
SRPM URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

The rpmlint warnings about non-executable-scripts are false positives, and these files don't need to be executable on the Ansible host node. Also, you'd mentioned pythonX-devel? I don't think this is necessary, right?

ktdreyer's scratch build of ceph-ansible-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13260946

Exact changes in git: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/ceph-ansible.git/commit/?id=373d2ea65ecd4dc7518f21d055c160a5711ff3b6

Someone pointed out to me that we need to ship ansible.cfg in this package or the ceph-common role will not work properly. Here's a new release with that change.

* Mon Mar 07 2016 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer> - 1.0.1-3
- Ship ansible.cfg

Spec URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible.spec
SRPM URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible-1.0.1-3.fc25.src.rpm

Exact change in git: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/ceph-ansible.git/commit/?id=c34a8ac07bab32fde031a98200ff430a069bfb8c

After talking with François, I realized that the RPM build process does generate a couple .pyo and .pyc files when python{2,3}-devel is in the buildroot. So we should BuildRequire those packages and ship the .pyo and .pyc files to be compliant with the Fedora packaging guidelines.

New version with this change:

* Mon Mar 07 2016 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer> - 1.0.1-4
- BR: python{2,3}-devel (rhbz#1313477)

Spec URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible.spec
SRPM URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc25.src.rpm

Exact changes in Git: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/ceph-ansible.git/commit/?id=e8c4e3bfd3f2af513ad934df1168ce57c44deacc

All required changes have been implemented, therefore ceph-ansible is approved as-is.

Please fix Ansbile=> Ansible (in a comment) before building though.

BTW I'd like to co-maintain if you don't mind.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/ceph-ansible

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7e2d35421

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-24185260b4

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eeabad7869

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eeabad7869

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7e2d35421

ceph-ansible-1.0.1-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-24185260b4

ceph-ansible-1.0.5-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7e2d35421

ceph-ansible-1.0.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7e2d35421

ceph-ansible-1.0.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.