Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/ffffb9ff890f7d2176662bc2a8ff37650a4e692c/ansible-collection-ansible-windows.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07520592-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.3.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Windows core collection for Ansible Fedora Account System Username: thebeanogamer COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/build/7520592/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7522378 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2284256-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07522378-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== * Latest version isn't packaged - not such a big deal, it might be nice actually to go through some earlier version for EPEL (if you are interested). ansible in the various releases uses the following versions: epel8: 2.3.0 epel9: 1.14.0 (hmm, don't ask) * BuildRequires: python3dist(mock) is not needed - it uses unittest.mock instead. * I would want to build this for EPEL, if you did not. It fails to build for epel8 because it does not support the new %bcond syntax: error: line 11: Unknown tag: %bcond tests 0 Could just have a separate branch or use the old syntax. I've also asked here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320038 to see if we can get ansible-packaging-tests on EPEL8 * Please add a note to the patch that this is downstream only ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 390 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ansible-collection- ansible-windows/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share, /usr/share/ansible/collections, /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections, /usr/share/ansible [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/ansible/collections, /usr/share, /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/ansible [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 38752 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.3.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.3.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp7jggxyyk')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ansible-collection-ansible-windows.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/docsite/links.yml /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/windows/docs/docsite/links.yml ansible-collection-ansible-windows.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/windows/tests/sanity/ignore-2.17.txt /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/windows/tests/sanity/ignore-2.14.txt:/usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/windows/tests/sanity/ignore-2.15.txt:/usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/windows/tests/sanity/ignore-2.16.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ansible-collection-ansible-windows". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible.windows/archive/refs/tags/2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b4be3561b2006afbc4689adc898dd5a8d931d26f4f223eafb4bf0a7db15e984 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b4be3561b2006afbc4689adc898dd5a8d931d26f4f223eafb4bf0a7db15e984 Requires -------- ansible-collection-ansible-windows (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible-core or (ansible < 2.10.0 with ansible >= 2.9.10)) /usr/bin/bash Provides -------- ansible-collection-ansible-windows: ansible-collection(ansible.windows) ansible-collection-ansible-windows Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ansible-collection-ansible-windows --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Without the mock dep, the tests run fine in EPEL9, so it's just EPEL8 that they do not.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08159944-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/ansible-collection-ansible-windows.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08159944-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Thanks for having a look at this! > Latest version isn't packaged Fixed https://github.com/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/commit/53106b88ad23cdd31a57ca7c7a1bc7990730b4be > it might be nice actually to go through some earlier version for EPEL Yep, I'm happy to publish EPEL branches with the old releases. > BuildRequires: python3dist(mock) is not needed - it uses unittest.mock instead. Fixed https://github.com/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/commit/992c98bbb39bed5fb08550f8771a397c6a1da1c6 > It fails to build for epel8 because it does not support the new %bcond syntax: Fixed https://github.com/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/commit/e241f76bea87b8c0d68bfabb0c22f7e98fa880c9 > Please add a note to the patch that this is downstream only Fixed https://github.com/thebeanogamer/ansible-collection-ansible-windows/commit/966446e681aedf60ac406347241e0957dd9b7027, might be worth adding to the template on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ansible_collections/#_example_specfile Please let me know if there's anything else to fix, or you have any pending reviews you'd like me to look at.
Created attachment 2052911 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7522378 to 8159980
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8159980 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2284256-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08159980-ansible-collection-ansible-windows/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Looks good, thanks. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible-collection-ansible-windows
FEDORA-2024-ad58837f7a (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ad58837f7a
FEDORA-2024-ad58837f7a (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44
FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75
FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0785ba532b (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-1.14.0-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0785ba532b
FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0785ba532b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0785ba532b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-4ad459bf44 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0785ba532b (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-1.14.0-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-e7d5a6fad0 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-05d1ebfd75 (ansible-collection-ansible-windows-2.5.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.