Description of problem: There is currently a critical bug where mariadb runs out of file descriptors due to systemd limits: https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1524809 This puppet module provides a way to configure systemd unit profiles and set limits for service. This way we can solve the above bug with this puppet module as well as provide a common way for other services to use this in the future. https://github.com/camptocamp/puppet-systemd Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Could you please provide an initial spec and srpm in this bugzilla? Format should be: Spec URL: <URL of raw SPEC file> SRPM URL: <URL to download SRPM>
$ licensecheck -r .|grep -v 'No copyright* UNKNOWN' ./.fixtures.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./.puppet-lint.rc: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./.sync.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./.travis.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./CHANGELOG.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./Gemfile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./HISTORY.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./LICENSE: *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) ./README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./Rakefile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./metadata.json: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./manifests/init.pp: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./manifests/service_limits.pp: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./manifests/tmpfile.pp: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./manifests/unit_file.pp: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/spec.opts: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/spec_helper.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./templates/limits.erb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./lib/facter/systemd.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/defines/tmpfile_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/defines/unit_file_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-5-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-5.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-6-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-6-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-6-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-6.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-7-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-7-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-7-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/centos-7.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-6-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-6-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-6-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-6.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-7-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-7-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-7-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-7.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-8-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-8-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-8-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/debian-8.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-10.04-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-12.04-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-12.04-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-12.04.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.04-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.04-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.04-x86_64-vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.04.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.10-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.10-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-14.10.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-15.04-x86_64-docker.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-15.04-x86_64-openstack.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-15.04.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-15.10.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/acceptance/nodesets/ubuntu-16.04.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/unit/facter/systemd_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./spec/unit/facter/systemd_version_spec.rb: *No copyright* UNKNOWN This package is under Apache License Version 2.0
Is it really necessary to add the spec/srpm? I see on https://github.com/openstack-packages/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/puppet-example.spec#L2 that the spec files are automatically generated for puppet modules. Is that not correct?
(In reply to Tim Rozet from comment #3) > Is it really necessary to add the spec/srpm? I see on > https://github.com/openstack-packages/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/ > puppet-example.spec#L2 > > that the spec files are automatically generated for puppet modules. Is that > not correct? You are right, forget my previous comment, please.
Added initial spec to puppet-systemd-distgit: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/4272/
Initial spec was merged. Removing under review patch: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/4307/
Generated spec and SRPM from the approved Gerrit review: Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rdo-packages/puppet-systemd-distgit/rpm-master/puppet-systemd.spec Srpm: http://46.231.132.68:8080/v1/AUTH_b50e80d3969f441a8b7b1fe831003e0a/rdoartifacts/72/4272/2/check/DLRN-rpmbuild/Z2405f74d81c745bfa55193b91e08eadf/artifacts/centos/repos/a0/32/a0321364514f52a4c110a15afbdad5109d768fe6_dev/puppet-systemd-0.4.0-0.20170111160903.a032136.el7.centos.src.rpm Note the SRPM is generated by DLRN, so some warnings are expected (differences in Version: and Release: fields).
fedora-review on approved version: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp /puppet-systemd/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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: 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]: 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: [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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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_version 0.4.0 [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: puppet-systemd-0.4.0-0.20170111160903.a032136.el7.centos.noarch.rpm puppet-systemd-0.4.0-0.20170111160903.a032136.el7.centos.src.rpm puppet-systemd.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-systemd.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 puppet-systemd.noarch: W: no-documentation puppet-systemd.src: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-systemd.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 puppet-systemd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 0.4.0-0.20170111160903.a032136.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- puppet-systemd.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag puppet-systemd.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 puppet-systemd.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- puppet-systemd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): puppet Provides -------- puppet-systemd: puppet-systemd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m dlrn-master -r -b 1408254 Buildroot used: dlrn-centos-ocata-x86_64-1 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 --------------------- About the no-changelogname-tag Error, it's because this spec file is prepared for dlrn so it doesn't contain changelog. Package is approved