+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1524733 +++ TripleO Support for configuring RHSM with an ansible role. It needs to be packaged. --- Additional comment from Emilien Macchi on 2017-12-11 17:32 EST --- --- Additional comment from Alan Pevec on 2017-12-11 18:10:19 EST --- How does this role compare to proposed rhsm_repository module? https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/28292 --- Additional comment from Emilien Macchi on 2017-12-11 18:15 EST --- --- Additional comment from Emilien Macchi on 2017-12-11 18:18:27 EST --- It's a good question Alan, I wasn't aware about https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/28292 ... If we go with https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/28292 then I'm not sure why we need a role, right? Sam, can you help us here before we import things? --- Additional comment from Sam Doran on 2017-12-12 09:15:52 EST --- I would say the two are unrelated. Regardless of the modules use, we still will need a role to handle the options and logic. If/when a module for managing RHSM repos is merged, it would be fairly easy to modify the role to use that module instead. --- Additional comment from Emilien Macchi on 2017-12-12 21:13:58 EST --- I confirm what Sam said, we still need this role, and this role will actually use the new module in core. The repo was moved to OpenStack: https://github.com/openstack/ansible-role-redhat-subscription Please let me know any blocker to make the import. Thanks --- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2017-12-13 04:06:20 EST --- In the long run, I think we should be able to handle this functionality using a mix of http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/redhat_subscription_module.html (which is still a preview) and https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/28292, but I agree that for the short term it should be ok. Running licensecheck on the repo, I see there is an issue. We have a commit [1] that changes the module license to Apache 2.0, however there is a file licensed with GPL v3 [2], and there is no license file in the repo. Could you fix this? [1]- https://github.com/openstack/ansible-role-redhat-subscription/commit/cb72219341208b1265ef9b6fd29a951c037443b7 [2]- https://github.com/openstack/ansible-role-redhat-subscription/blob/master/library/redhat_repos.py --- Additional comment from Emilien Macchi on 2017-12-13 08:28:56 EST --- Javier, we're adding the LICENSE here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/527561/4/LICENSE Licence was changed so it matches other OpenStack projects. I don't see any problem. Let me know what's the next step. --- Additional comment from Haïkel Guémar on 2017-12-13 09:13:55 EST --- I asked original author to approve the licensing change. Let's assume here that licensing is fixed (author is from RH) and continue review and link Emilien review in the spec. --- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2017-12-13 09:17:53 EST --- Author just approved the change, this is the current licensecheck (just for the record, but it will be different once the initial change is merged): $ licensecheck -r . ./.travis.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./defaults/main.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./library/redhat_repos.py: *No copyright* GPL (v3 or later) ./meta/main.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tasks/main.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./templates/rhsm.conf.j2: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tests/Vagrantfile: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tests/inventory: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tests/test.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tests/vagrant.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./vars/main.yml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN --- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2017-12-14 11:57:07 EST --- Using the following SRPM for the review: https://logs.rdoproject.org/87/10987/3/check/DLRN-rpmbuild/Zdb51fb4b80e249f3823e1da67c811c3d/centos/current/ansible-role-redhat-subscription-0.0.1-0.20171214151812.99c534d.el7.centos.src.rpm --- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2017-12-14 11:58:16 EST --- Review notes: - The Source0 and %define notes are expected, since the SRPM was generated by DLRN. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/ansible-role-redhat- subscription/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ansible [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /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. [x]: 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 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define upstream_version 0.0.1.dev16 [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: ansible-role-redhat-subscription-0.0.1-0.20171214151812.99c534d.el7.centos.noarch.rpm ansible-role-redhat-subscription-0.0.1-0.20171214151812.99c534d.el7.centos.src.rpm ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ansible role for setting up Red Hat Subscription Management. ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible/roles/redhat-subscription/library/redhat_repos.py 644 /usr/bin/python ansible-role-redhat-subscription.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ansible role for setting up Red Hat Subscription Management. ansible-role-redhat-subscription.src: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-redhat-subscription.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ansible-role-redhat-subscription-0.0.1.dev16-0.20171214151812.99c534d.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ansible role for setting up Red Hat Subscription Management. ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ansible-role-redhat-subscription <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ansible-role-redhat-subscription.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ansible/roles/redhat-subscription/library/redhat_repos.py 0644L /usr/bin/python 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- ansible-role-redhat-subscription (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ansible Provides -------- ansible-role-redhat-subscription: ansible-role-redhat-subscription Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ansible-role-redhat-subscription -r -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 package is APPROVED.
Spec is here: https://github.com/rdo-packages/ansible-role-redhat-subscription-distgit/blob/rpm-master/ansible-role-redhat-subscription.spec
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2018:2086