Bug 1575142
Summary: | Review Request: python-ansible-runner - Tool to interface with ansible | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dan Radez <dradez> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 28 | CC: | package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | noarch | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-05-15 20:47:37 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Dan Radez
2018-05-04 20:59:00 UTC
$ rpmlint python-ansible-runner.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - Apache 2.0 is not a valid License shorthand, it should be "ASL 2.0". See the full list here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - Not needed: %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} - Not needed in %install: rm -rf %{buildroot} - For Fedora >= 28, you can use %?python_enable_dependency_generator instead of specify the Requires manually. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators. If you plan to use it on EPEL or Fedora < 28, disregard this for now. - You could use %{py2_dist and {py3_dist to specify your BR and RR, See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names Thanks for your review Robert-André Mauchin My hope is to put this in epel alongside ansible so I'll skip the dep generator for now. I've made the other updates you've requested. The dist macro didn't work on all the packages so I applied it to the ones that it did work on. I've re-uploaded the spec and a new src.rpm: https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner.spec $ rpmlint python-ansible-runner.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26795875 - The LICENSE.md disappeared from the archive thus the install fails: + cp -pr LICENSE.md /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc29.x86_64/usr/share/doc/python2-ansible-runner BUILDSTDERR: cp: cannot stat 'LICENSE.md': No such file or directory - The archive provided in the SRPM and the one downloaded from https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz are different, they must be the same. I did roll a tarball from the github repo to include the LICENSE file. ansible-runner's tarball on pythonhosted doesn't include the LICENSE file. I'm in contact with them to fix that. I've pointed the src tarball to github for the time being since that includes the license file. I also noticed that there doesn't appear to be python3 support. The tests were failing on importing "thread" which I think it py2 specific. I've pulled out the python3 sub package for now and will ask the ansible-runnner folks about it when I talk to them again. Spec and src.rpm reuploaded: https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner.spec $ rpmlint python-ansible-runner.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26859212 - Use a more meaningful name for the archive: Source0: https://github.com/ansible/%{pypi_name}/archive/%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Should be python2-devel: BuildRequires: python-devel - You must include the license with %license, not %doc: %license LICENSE.md - %description -n python2-%{pypi_name} is empty Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.md is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-ansible-runner /review-python-ansible-runner/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/test(python2-neomodel) [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 30720 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]: 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 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. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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]: 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 ------- Checking: python2-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm python2-ansible-runner.noarch: E: no-description-tag python2-ansible-runner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansible-runner python2-ansible-runner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansible-runner-2 python2-ansible-runner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansible-runner-2.7 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source, BR, %license and %description all updated Spec and src.rpm reuploaded: https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm https://radez.fedorapeople.org/python-ansible-runner.spec I don't see any man pages for ansible-runner. I'll also report this back to ansible-runner team. Package approved. (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ansible-runner python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b1341ccd1c python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-b1341ccd1c python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-5187aa95dd python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2018-5187aa95dd python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |