Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core-2.3.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: ansible-collection-kubernetes-core provides the kubernetes.core (formerly known as community.kubernetes) Ansible collection. The collection includes a variety of Ansible content to help automate the management of applications in Kubernetes and OpenShift clusters, as well as the provisioning and maintenance of clusters themselves. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88239329
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core-2.3.2-1.fc35.src.rpm I reviewed the licenses and added one that was missing. Also, is it permissible to use SPDX identifiers in `License:` now? I saw that the FESCO change was approved, but I don't know if that means they are allowed yet. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88239852
I'll review this. I think there will be an announcement when the SPXD identifiers are to be used...
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - The forge macros aren't really maintained currently, so not sure it's a good idea to use them here, but I suppose if they break it will break a lot of things, so one more can't hurt. - worth adding Obsoletes/provides for ansible-collection-community-kubernetes ? Those are the only two items I see. If you want to replace forge macros or add Obsoletes on that other collection, you can do it before importing. :) This package is APPROVED. ===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 269 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/git/ansible/2096448-ansible-collection-kubernetes- core/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: 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 696320 bytes in 32 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: [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ansible-collections/kubernetes.core/archive/2.3.2/kubernetes.core-2.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef87ee7e06970d35a32b94207f1f7fb7689c12918ce6d4591dff756985f994dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef87ee7e06970d35a32b94207f1f7fb7689c12918ce6d4591dff756985f994dc Requires -------- ansible-collection-kubernetes-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible-core or (ansible < 2.10.0 with ansible >= 2.9.10)) Provides -------- ansible-collection-kubernetes-core: ansible-collection(kubernetes.core) ansible-collection-kubernetes-core Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2096448 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for reviewing this, Kevin! > - The forge macros aren't really maintained currently, so not sure it's a good idea > to use them here, but I suppose if they break it will break a lot of things, so > one more can't hurt. Yeah, I try to avoid them, but I think they make this specfile simpler. They're used by the go macros and part of the go packaging guidelines, so I'm kind of used to using them. > - worth adding Obsoletes/provides for ansible-collection-community-kubernetes ? The new version of ansible-collection-community-kubernetes-core depends on this one and provides redirects. I don't want to add Obsoletes, as this would break existing playbooks. Provides would not be correct either, as this requires manual changes to playbooks and is not really a full drop in replacement. community.kubernetes is deprecated upstream, though, so I would like to add `Provides: deprecated()` to that package and update the %description accordingly. If you add me as a co-maintainer to ansible-collection-community-kubernetes, I can handle it. Also, let me know if I should add give you or @infra-sig permissions on this package.
I've requested a repo: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45082
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #4) > > > - worth adding Obsoletes/provides for ansible-collection-community-kubernetes ? > > The new version of ansible-collection-community-kubernetes-core depends on > this one and provides redirects. I don't want to add Obsoletes, as this > would break existing playbooks. Provides would not be correct either, as > this requires manual changes to playbooks and is not really a full drop in > replacement. community.kubernetes is deprecated upstream, though, so I would > like to add `Provides: deprecated()` to that package and update the > %description accordingly. If you add me as a co-maintainer to > ansible-collection-community-kubernetes, I can handle it. Also, let me know > if I should add give you or @infra-sig permissions on this package. Sure, I can add you. How long should we keep the old package around and deprecated? If you want to add me here that could be nice.
> How long should we keep the old package around and deprecated? I suppose we can retire it in Rawhide once kubernetes.core/community.kubernetes 3.0.0 is released. That is when the redirects are supposed to be removed. At least, community.kubernetes 2.x.x shouldn't need to be updated, as it doesn't contain any plugins, only redirects[1]. [1]: https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.kubernetes/blob/0cc02beb1ecf4c6ad165fe2ee5cf0f9626329766/meta/runtime.yml#L18
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-kubernetes-core
FEDORA-2022-b8ad3b3961 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b8ad3b3961
FEDORA-2022-b8ad3b3961 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75
FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-1f4e043f75 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.