Need to add tripleo-ansible-modules package for tripleo composable upgrade with Ansible: github repo: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-ansible-modules Spec: WIP
rdoinfo review: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/4138
Spec: https://github.com/matbu/tripleo-ansible-modules-spec/blob/master/tripleo-ansible-modules.spec
According to the comment from Emilien on the review on rdoinfo, I renamed the package name and project to: ansible-pacemaker: Repo: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-pacemaker Spec https://github.com/matbu/tripleo-ansible-modules-spec/blob/master/ansible-pacemaker.spec rdoinfo review: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/4138
This should be an RDO review rather than a Fedora one.
Initial licensecheck output: $ licensecheck -r . ./setup.py: Apache (v2.0) ./modules/pacemaker_resource.py: Apache (v2.0) ./modules/pacemaker_cluster.py: Apache (v2.0) ./README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./LICENSE: *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE The module is licensed using the Apache 2.0 license, and I see no apparent issues in the git repo history.
The licencecheck output is now fixed
These are the files from the approved review in Gerrit: Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/ansible-pacemaker-distgit/rpm-master/ansible-pacemaker.spec SRPM: http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/14/4214/12/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Zcec52951d9a840a7893342c76b22e750/artifacts/centos/repos/9e/be/9ebe9481369acbec368b2e7e2a87965b487d8912_dev/ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1-0.20170118133422.9ebe948.el7.centos.src.rpm
After an update to fix Source0 and URL: Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/ansible-pacemaker-distgit/rpm-master/ansible-pacemaker.spec SRPM: http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/69/4369/2/gate/DLRN-rpmbuild/Z5bc9af2cc1fc4a118a761a0dc633637e/artifacts/centos/repos/9e/be/9ebe9481369acbec368b2e7e2a87965b487d8912_dev/ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1-0.20170119091438.9ebe948.el7.centos.src.rpm
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 ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/ansible-pcmk/review-ansible- pacemaker/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: 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: [-]: 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: ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1-0.20170119091438.9ebe948.el7.centos.noarch.rpm ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1-0.20170119091438.9ebe948.el7.centos.src.rpm ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible-modules/pacemaker_cluster.py 644 /usr/bin/python ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible-modules/pacemaker_resource.py 644 /usr/bin/python ansible-pacemaker.src: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-pacemaker.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1.dev15-0.20170119091438.9ebe948.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible-modules/pacemaker_resource.py 0644L /usr/bin/python ansible-pacemaker.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible-modules/pacemaker_cluster.py 0644L /usr/bin/python 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/ansible-pcmk/ansible-pacemaker.spec 2017-01-19 10:42:35.782361031 +0100 +++ /tmp/ansible-pcmk/review-ansible-pacemaker/srpm-unpacked/ansible-pacemaker.spec 2017-01-19 10:14:38.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ +%global dlrn 1 +%define upstream_version 0.0.1.dev15 %global srcname ansible_pacemaker @@ -4,6 +6,6 @@ Name: ansible-pacemaker -Version: 0.0.1 -Release: 0.20170119091438.9ebe948 +Version: 0.0.1 +Release: 0.20170119091438.9ebe948%{?dist} Summary: Ansible modules for managing Pacemaker clusters @@ -11,5 +13,5 @@ License: ASL 2.0 URL: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-pacemaker -Source0: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-pacemaker/archive/master.tar.gz +Source0: ansible-pacemaker-0.0.1.dev15-0.20170119091438.9ebe948.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch Requires -------- ansible-pacemaker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ansible Provides -------- ansible-pacemaker: ansible-pacemaker Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-pacemaker/archive/master.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b43e6dbd167de38cfecb793fd129d9dc04f9c3022a6aa19ac576e10614cf970 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ansible-pacemaker -m dlrn Buildroot used: dlrn-centos7-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 * The differences between the spec from the review and srpm are due to the SRPM being generated by DLRN, so they are expected. Same for the dist tag being present. The package is APPROVED.
This landed so closing.