Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~nathans/ansible-pcp/ansible-pcp.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~nathans/ansible-pcp/ansible-pcp-2.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A collection containing roles for Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) and related software such as Redis and Grafana. Fedora Account System Username: nathans
Package approved, with two notes: - I'm not 100% sure if the .galaxy_install_info files should be there in every role/meta folder - it contains an "install_date" and a version which is set to "0.0.1" (which doesn't match the package version). Can you verify if this file should be in the RPM? - It would be great if tests run as part of the %check, but I assume that's not possible due to the nature of the package? I.e. it would require a VM or container to perform tests of the ansible roles? 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. [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 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]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ansible-pcp-2.0.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ansible-pcp-2.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm ansible-pcp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end ansible-pcp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/bintray/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/bpftrace/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/elasticsearch/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/grafana/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/mssql/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/pcp/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/redis/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/performancecopilot/metrics/roles/spark/meta/.galaxy_install_info ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performancecopilot -> performance copilot, performance-copilot, nonperformance ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redis -> rides, redid, reds ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grafana -> granary ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bpftrace -> footrace ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb ansible-pcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elasticsearch -> elastic search, elastic-search, elasticated ansible-pcp.src: W: unexpanded-macro URL %{ansible_collection_url} ansible-pcp.src: W: invalid-url URL %{ansible_collection_url} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (none): E: no installed packages by name ansible-pcp Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/performancecopilot/ansible-pcp/archive/v2.0.2/ansible-pcp-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 11d2ae21823bd9842b64ad7e7094670922b21af3e3729514a47d5939e3a34182 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 11d2ae21823bd9842b64ad7e7094670922b21af3e3729514a47d5939e3a34182 Requires -------- ansible-pcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible >= 2.9.0 with ansible < 2.10.0) ansible Provides -------- ansible-pcp: ansible-collection(performancecopilot.metrics) ansible-pcp Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1895766 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Perl, fonts, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> - I'm not 100% sure if the .galaxy_install_info files should be there in every role/meta folder - it contains an "install_date" and a version which is set to "0.0.1" (which doesn't match the package version). Can you verify if this file should be in the RPM? You can probably get rid of _all_ dotfiles/dot-directories from the package. They are not needed by ansible. > - It would be great if tests run as part of the %check, but I assume that's not possible due to the nature of the package? I.e. it would require a VM or container to perform tests of the ansible roles? You could probably run unit tests, linters, etc. - but no tests that actually run ansible - and no molecule.
> - I'm not 100% sure if the .galaxy_install_info files should be there in every role/meta folder - it contains an "install_date" and a version which is set to "0.0.1" (which doesn't match the package version). Can you verify if this file should be in the RPM? This is a historical quirk - they should not exist even in the git repo anymore, I'll fix that and do a 2.0.3 before uploading. > - It would be great if tests run as part of the %check, but I assume that's not possible due to the nature of the package? I.e. it would require a VM or container to perform tests of the ansible roles? For realistic testing we'd need to make invasive change to the build machine or use a VM, yeah. I can't think of anything meaningful we can add here in practice that's going to be helpful above and beyond the existing CI.
(In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2) > [...] > You could probably run unit tests, linters, etc. - but no tests that > actually run ansible - and no molecule. Good call - we don't have any tests that don't use molecule but I'll add in ansible-lint checking.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-pcp
FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800
FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150
FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-bfca03f800 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-d8221e7150 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.