[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928

Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||moc...@hotmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928

Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1146929




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929
[Bug 1146929] Review Request: ansibleinventorygrapher - Creates graphs
representing ansible inventory
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928

Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unofficial review:

builds, installs works good!

Description is not in American English 'behaviour' should be 'behavior'

suggestion:
remove trailing whitespace on line 36



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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[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. 3 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/ansiblelint/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.
[!]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[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.
 requested at: https://github.com/willthames/ansible-lint/issues/25
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
missing requirement ansible, please add:
Requires: ansible

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928



--- Comment #4 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com ---
Thanks Piotr for above review. I have fixed the reported issues but kept same
release number.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansiblelint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928



--- Comment #5 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com ---
I now added upstream LICENSE text as SOURCE1 as its missed in tarball release.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansiblelint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansiblelint-1.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved

2014-10-10 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928

Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: ansiblelint
   |python-ansiblelint - Checks |- Checks playbooks for
   |playbooks for practices and |practices and behaviour
   |behaviour that could|that could potentially be
   |potentially be improved |improved



--- Comment #1 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com ---
This is actually a tool.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansiblelint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review