Bug 1146928

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

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]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
ansiblelint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior
ansiblelint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
ansiblelint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansible-lint
ansiblelint.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior
ansiblelint.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ansiblelint
ansiblelint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour -> behavior
ansiblelint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
ansiblelint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansible-lint
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
ansiblelint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
ansiblelint:
    ansiblelint



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/ansible-lint/ansible-lint-1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : abf578fd9d40a2ecd201f6a0fff51d3e7cc20126507ac02f2d5bb6267515bd99
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : abf578fd9d40a2ecd201f6a0fff51d3e7cc20126507ac02f2d5bb6267515bd99


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n SRPMS/ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

missing requirement ansible, please add:
Requires: ansible

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

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

Just realized I should have used correct package name when I dropped "python-" prefix. Here is a new update

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansible-lint.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm

* Rpmlint: o errors
* License: MIT
* Binaries: None
* Spec: Clean
* Content: Clean
* %check test: Pass
* Python package: Noarch
* Python packaging guideline: checked
* CHECKSUM(MD5) this package: bca0b47b18ae0f77cb4b012060bc40b8
 CHECKSUM(MD5) upstream package: bca0b47b18ae0f77cb4b012060bc40b8
========

APPROVED

Thanks for the package review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ansible-lint
Short Description:  Best practices checker for Ansible
Upstream URL:  https://github.com/willthames/ansible-lint
Owners: pnemade
Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc21

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el7

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc19

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc20

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el6

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

ansible-lint-1.0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.