In order for undercloud and overcloud nodes to be registered as clients in triple-O, we need to run puppet code to register the nodes as IPA clients. This puppet module contains code that runs ipa-client-install. Project URL: https://github.com/joshuabaird/puppet-ipaclient
Initial licensecheck output: $ licensecheck -r . ./spec/spec_helper.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/fixtures/augeas/etc/ssh/sshd_config: *No copyright* GENERATED FILE ./spec/fixtures/augeas/etc/pam.d/common-session: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/classes/ipaclient_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/classes/ipaclient_automount_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./lib/facter/sssd_facts.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./lib/facter/ipa_facts.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./Rakefile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./README.md: MIT/X11 (BSD like) ./Gemfile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN The code is distributed using the MIT license. Looking at the git repo history, I don't find any potential issue.
Spec file: https://vakwetu.fedorapeople.org/puppet-ipaclient.spec
The spec is now ready for review: SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/puppet-ipaclient-distgit/rpm-master/puppet-ipaclient.spec SRPM: http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/42/4142/2/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Ze8d246ba9e3a442abf855acfd85b86c1/artifacts/centos/repos/05/2d/052dd074420b6a2a494e86b2c03020be57940205_dev/puppet-ipaclient-2.5.1-0.20161222185324.052dd07.el7.centos.src.rpm
The errors related to the differences between the spec included in the srpm and the file itself are expected, and due to the srpm being generated by DLRN. The license text is not tagged as %license because this is the way the automated tooling for puppet modules work, and has been accepted as such. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review- puppet-ipaclient/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/openstack-puppet/modules, /usr/share/openstack-puppet [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openstack- puppet/modules, /usr/share/openstack-puppet [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. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define upstream_name puppet- ipaclient [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: puppet-ipaclient-2.5.1-0.20161222185324.052dd07.el7.centos.noarch.rpm puppet-ipaclient-2.5.1-0.20161222185324.052dd07.el7.centos.src.rpm puppet-ipaclient.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency puppet-stdlib puppet-ipaclient.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-ipaclient.noarch: W: no-documentation puppet-ipaclient.src: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-ipaclient.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 2.5.1-0.20161222185324.052dd07.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- puppet-ipaclient.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency puppet-stdlib puppet-ipaclient.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-ipaclient.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/puppet-ipaclient.spec 2016-12-23 09:32:47.607863522 +0100 +++ /tmp/review-puppet-ipaclient/srpm-unpacked/puppet-ipaclient.spec 2016-12-22 19:53:24.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ +%global dlrn 1 +%define upstream_version 2.5.1 %{!?upstream_version: %global upstream_version %{commit}} %define upstream_name puppet-ipaclient @@ -8,6 +10,6 @@ Name: puppet-ipaclient -Version: 2.5.1 -Release: 0.20161222185324.052dd07 +Version: 2.5.1 +Release: 0.20161222185324.052dd07%{?dist} Summary: IPA Client Puppet Module License: MIT @@ -15,5 +17,5 @@ URL: https://github.com/joshuabaird/puppet-ipaclient -Source0: http://github.com/joshuabaird/%{upstream_name}/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{upstream_name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz +Source0: 2.5.1-0.20161222185324.052dd07.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch @@ -49,3 +51,2 @@ %changelog - Requires -------- puppet-ipaclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): puppet puppet-stdlib Provides -------- puppet-ipaclient: puppet-ipaclient Source checksums ---------------- http://github.com/joshuabaird/puppet-ipaclient/archive/052dd074420b6a2a494e86b2c03020be57940205.tar.gz#/puppet-ipaclient-052dd07.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : abf619f71f163a061305dafa27aaedd23b4c94441bb4057846a7228ac9a93274 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n puppet-ipaclient -m dlrn Buildroot used: dlrn-centos7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 The package is APPROVED.
The package is now available in the RDO Trunk repo: https://trunk.rdoproject.org/centos7