Description of problem: Add new ansible role package ansible-role-lunasa-hsm. This role can be used by TripleO to deploy Barbican using one or more Luna SA HSM devices. Additional info: This package is needed as part of an RFE to add Luna SA support to Barbican: BZ# 1702765. The ansible role source can be found here: https://opendev.org/openstack/ansible-role-lunasa-hsm A WIP distgit repo can be found here: https://github.com/dmend/ansible-role-lunasa-hsm-distgit
Output from licensecheck: licensecheck -r . ./.gitreview: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./.zuul.yaml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./AUTHORS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./LICENSE: *No copyright* Apache License (v2.0) ./README.rst: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./requirements.txt: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./setup.cfg: *No copyright* Apache License ./setup.py: Apache License (v2.0) ./test-requirements.txt: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tox.ini: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./defaults/main.yaml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tasks/main.yaml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./tasks/register_hsm.yaml: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
Thanks for your submission! Following step 2 from https://www.rdoproject.org/documentation/add-packages/, you should now create a review in the rdoinfo repository, so we can move on with the process.
Thanks, Javier! Here is the patch to rdoinfo: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/27115/
Thank you for the reviews on the rdoinfo patch. Now that the distgit repo is available I've submitted a patch to add the spec file: - https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/27176/
Some issues detected but those are acceptable:- - %define is used, used by tool: DLRN - %changelog not in prescribed format, setup by tool: DLRN - %check present, it's ansible role and don't have unit tests - SourceX tarball generation is taken care by tool: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License (v2.0)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/ansible- role-lunasa-hsm/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/ansible/roles(ansible-role-tripleo-modify-image, ansible- role-thales-hsm, ansible-role-chrony, ansible-role-openstack- operations, ansible-role-container-registry, ansible, ansible-tripleo- ipa, ansible-role-redhat-subscription, ansible-tripleo-ipsec, ansible- role-atos-hsm, openstack-tripleo-common, tripleo-ansible, rhel-system- roles) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [-]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 ===== 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). [?]: 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.dev8 [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-lunasa-hsm-0.0.1-0.20200505102206.235bfe9.el8.noarch.rpm ansible-role-lunasa-hsm-0.0.1-0.20200505102206.235bfe9.el8.src.rpm ansible-role-lunasa-hsm.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-lunasa-hsm.src: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-lunasa-hsm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ansible-role-lunasa-hsm-0.0.1.dev8-0.20200505102206.235bfe9.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ansible-role-lunasa-hsm.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag ansible-role-lunasa-hsm.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://opendev.org/openstack/ansible-role-lunasa-hsm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- ansible-role-lunasa-hsm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3dist(ansible) Provides -------- ansible-role-lunasa-hsm: ansible-role-lunasa-hsm python3.6dist(ansible-role-lunasa-hsm) python3dist(ansible-role-lunasa-hsm) Package is Approved
ansible-role-lunasa-hsm available since Train release, closing it.