Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/rpm/ansible-collection-containers-podman.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/raw/rpm/ansible-collection-containers-podman-1.4.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Ansible collection for Podman containers management Fedora Account System Username: sshnaidm
It's my first package. Link to successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61721899
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues/Suggestions: 1) I could not find any file packages using "Python" license. Am I missed any file which is under "Python" license? 2) Changelog entry contain only version (1.4.1) and not version-release (1.4.1-1). Fix this to include release number. 3) rpmlint output showed "hidden-file-or-dir" for ".github" files. You can remove them in %prep as rm -vr .github .gitignore 4) I think you don't need one more time to specify "-type f" so you can just use below line find -type f ! -executable -name '*.py' -print -exec sed -i -e '1{\@^#!.*@d}' '{}' + 5) Maybe you want to install "tests" directory as well. I saw some other Ansible collection packages packaged them. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/1927697-ansible-collection-containers- podman/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: 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: ansible-collection-containers-podman-1.4.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ansible-collection-containers-podman-1.4.1-1.fc34.src.rpm ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.1 ['1.4.1-1.fc34', '1.4.1-1'] ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.github ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.github ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.gitignore ansible-collection-containers-podman.src: W: unexpanded-macro URL %{ansible_collection_url} ansible-collection-containers-podman.src: W: invalid-url URL %{ansible_collection_url} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.1 ['1.4.1-1.fc34', '1.4.1-1'] ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.github ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.github ansible-collection-containers-podman.noarch: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/containers/podman/.gitignore 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/ansible-podman-collections/archive/1.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b75b792bd7960d4c8cc9d75ce4a3337ca237d076d6108d4674f347e3556db41 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b75b792bd7960d4c8cc9d75ce4a3337ca237d076d6108d4674f347e3556db41 Requires -------- ansible-collection-containers-podman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible >= 2.9.0 or ansible-base > 2.10.0) Provides -------- ansible-collection-containers-podman: ansible-collection(containers.podman) ansible-collection-containers-podman Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1927697 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
If you are new RPM packager and want to package some software in Fedora then you will need Sponsorship for your package. To get sponsor for your package in packager group, please follow these things. Make sure you have followed steps given on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers till "Get Sponsored" section. We have this process, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored into the packager group. When you submit your first submission, it will be good if you either submit few more packages and/or do some full detailed package reviews. This is needed to make sure package submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging guidelines. Check more on this at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you Please go through the following links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ 3) To find the packages already submitted for review, check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful while doing package reviews. 5) https://pagure.io/FedoraReview this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention "This is un-official review of the package." at top of your review comment. Good to review packages listed in https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html or https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/needsponsor.html When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages. An example command to run fedora-review on any package review bugzilla is fedora-review -b <bugid> -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 If you got any questions please so ask.
Fixed all in a new version: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/09865d14db79e6eb0416a364d9a7142e6cf38021/ansible-collection-containers-podman.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/raw/09865d14db79e6eb0416a364d9a7142e6cf38021/ansible-collection-containers-podman-1.4.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
It is recommended practice that when you make a change to SPEC file, keep increasing release tag and adding relevant changelog information. I find that your SPEC file is updated but SRPM not. Please update SRPM file by increasing release number. Also, keep working on reviewing other people's package submission.
Increased version number now: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/rpm/ansible-collection-containers-podman.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sshnaidm/ansible-podman-collections/raw/rpm/ansible-collection-containers-podman-1.4.1-2.fc33.src.rpm Link to successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62501711 Going to review packages. Thanks
Any update here? Did you get time to review packages?
@Parag, please see my review for python-usort package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936257#c2
Sagi, Thank you for doing 1 unofficial review. I had already looked at it and looked good to me. I was waiting for some more review from you.
As other people are asking status of this request let me clarify. This package is ready to be APPROVED. I only thought either you can submit more than 1 package or do more than 1 package review so it will be quick to Sponsor you. I have already commented similar in comment#3.
@Parag, thanks a lot for your effort. I did another review in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941294#c2 and started preparing to push another package.
@Parag, submitted another package request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946258
Thank you Sagi for your contribution here. I have sponsored you. But I heard as we moved to new Fedora Account System (noggin) there are some problems going on. Not sure if you will also face them. But now your can move ahead with step7 as given on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors I can see you are part of "packager" group now at https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/sshnaidm/ Make sure you have "fedora-packager" package installed on your system.
@Parag, I think there is some problem with your mail probably? https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33669 The email address "panemade" of the Bugzilla reviewer is not tied to a user in FAS. Group membership can't be validated.
pnemade's account is fine now, but now releng script doesn't find sshnaidm in packagers group, I suspect it still goes to old FAS: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33669#comment-729188
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-containers-podman