Bug 2367699 - Review Request: ansible-role-robertdebock-users - An ansible role to add users and groups on your system
Summary: Review Request: ansible-role-robertdebock-users - An ansible role to add user...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://galaxy.ansible.com/ui/standal...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-05-20 23:39 UTC by Emmanuel Seyman
Modified: 2025-07-06 22:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Emmanuel Seyman 2025-05-20 23:39:59 UTC
Spec URL: https://eseyman.fedorapeople.org/ansible-role-robertdebock-users/ansible-role-robertdebock-users.spec
SRPM URL: https://eseyman.fedorapeople.org/ansible-role-robertdebock-users/ansible-role-robertdebock-users-6.1.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description:
The purpose of this Ansible role is to add users and groups on your system.

Fedora Account System Username: eseyman

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-05-20 23:43:38 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9067492
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367699-ansible-role-robertdebock-users/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067492-ansible-role-robertdebock-users/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.

Comment 2 Michael S. 2025-06-07 12:51:07 UTC
So, it seems there is no packaging policy for ansible-role, I think this could be a opportunity to add one. the only example I found of reviewed ansible role were in openstack so I will take a look at them.

However, in the mean time, I have a few comments (not looked in detail yet at the fedora-review output):

- there is requirements (https://github.com/robertdebock/ansible-role-users/blob/master/requirements.yml) that seems to be missing, and also in the requirements.txt for python requirements. I think the .txt are not needed for run time for now, the 2 roles (bootstrap and core_dependencies) might not be strictly required. However, the collections ones might be important and I think this should be expressed in Requirements (we have a rpm for ansible-collection-community-general.noarch, not sure that's pulled by existing deps, and I think it could be automated). 

- there is molecule tests, so I think there should be a attempt to run molecule in %check, especially since Fedora use python version that are not tested upstream, this might break.

- if I am not wrong, we need to add explicit dependencies and no longer rely , and so we might need openssh (for ssh-keygen), shadow-utils (for chage), sudo (for visudo, used to validate config) and gawk (for awk). Not sure the exact policy nowadays.

Comment 3 Emmanuel Seyman 2025-07-06 22:21:36 UTC
(In reply to Michael S. from comment #2)
>
> So, it seems there is no packaging policy for ansible-role, I think this
> could be a opportunity to add one. the only example I found of reviewed
> ansible role were in openstack so I will take a look at them.

FTR, I have quite a few packages coming.

> - there is requirements

I have added ansible-core, ansible-collection-ansible-posix and ansible-collection-community-general as requirements.

Spec URL: https://eseyman.fedorapeople.org/ansible-role-robertdebock-users/ansible-role-robertdebock-users.spec
SRPM URL: https://eseyman.fedorapeople.org/ansible-role-robertdebock-users/ansible-role-robertdebock-users-6.1.5-2.fc42.src.rpm

> - there is molecule tests, so I think there should be a attempt to run
> molecule in %check, especially since Fedora use python version that are not
> tested upstream, this might break.

While I'm not scared of breakage (upstream does CI against Fedora), running molecule does seem to be a good idea, if possible.

> - if I am not wrong, we need to add explicit dependencies and no longer rely
> , and so we might need openssh (for ssh-keygen), shadow-utils (for chage),
> sudo (for visudo, used to validate config) and gawk (for awk). Not sure the
> exact policy nowadays.

If I'm not mistaken, these are used on the managed node, not the control node.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.