Bug 2222130

Thank you very much for the package Maxwell,


> * Tue Jul 11 2023 Maxwell G <maxwell> - 2.14.1-1

There is a typo in the version number. Should be 3.0.0-1

Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql.spec
SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Fix %changelog and shebang issues

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103501787

Created attachment 1976288 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6162662 to 6180561

Thank you for the update


> Source:         https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.postgresql/archive/%{version}/community.crypto-%{version}.tar.gz

Sorry, I missed that the first time. The file name at the end looks wrong. There should IMHO be s/crypto/postgresql/

Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql.spec
SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Fix source tarball name 🤦

Created attachment 1976411 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6180561 to 6183227

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

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



===== 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", "Python Software Foundation License
     2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public
     License v3.0 or later". 250 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/jkadlcik/git/FedoraReview/2222130-ansible-collection-community-
     postgresql/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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-crypto, ansible-collection-community-mysql,
     ansible-collection-community-kubernetes, ansible-collection-community-
     docker, ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq, ansible-collection-
     community-libvirt, ansible-collection-community-general)
[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 34010 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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 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).
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ansible-collection-community-postgresql-3.0.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          ansible-collection-community-postgresql-3.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpkmckbdeg')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

============================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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-collections/community.postgresql/archive/3.0.0/community.crypto-3.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5e178a05a2c9c54915b51a8c2e7989ace752d2231985baee6cd600c85b75632b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e178a05a2c9c54915b51a8c2e7989ace752d2231985baee6cd600c85b75632b


Requires
--------
ansible-collection-community-postgresql (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (ansible-core or (ansible < 2.10.0 with ansible >= 2.9.10))



Provides
--------
ansible-collection-community-postgresql:
    ansible-collection(community.postgresql)
    ansible-collection-community-postgresql



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2222130
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ruby, Perl, PHP, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-community-postgresql

Thank you, Jakub!

FEDORA-2023-2e90336f3a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2e90336f3a

FEDORA-2023-2e90336f3a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.