[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ansible-0.3.1-1.el6 |ansible-0.3.1-1.fc15 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-10 10:34:24 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ansible-0.3.1-1.fc15|ansible-0.3.1-1.fc16 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-10 10:44:34 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ansible-0.3.1-1.fc17|ansible-0.3.1-1.el6 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-09 15:13:52 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 08:32:39 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-07 10:29:48 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-0.3.1-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #12 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-05-06 03:02:21 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ansible Short Description: Minimal SSH command and control Owners: tbielawa Branches: f15 f16 f17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-06 16:58:36 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-05-06 19:31:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-06 19:35:16 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-0.3.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-06 19:33:45 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-0.3.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-06 19:49:18 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ansible-0.3.1-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #17 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-05-07 00:09:54 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ansible New Branches: el6 Owners: tbielawa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||ansible-0.3.1-1.fc17 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-07 00:18:21 EDT --- ansible-0.3.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flag||fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-05-04 19:29:59 EDT ---
Sorry for not responding sooner, I am in holidays right now.
The cp are still wrong :
cp examples/hosts $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/ansible/
( since they do not preserve the timestamp )
However, that's just a should, so not blocking for the review.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Licenses found: *No copyright* UNKNOWN, GPL (v3 or later) For
detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/809882/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ansible-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
ansible.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint ansible-0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
ansible.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/809882/ansible-0.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 28c36c5926af878ebfd39c932cb86650
MD5SUM upstream package : 28c36c5926af878ebfd39c932cb86650
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #11 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-05-04 22:49:23 EDT --- Horay! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-05-01 06:00:10 EDT --- Seems the license is wrong, it should be GPLv3+, not GPLv3 ( ie, the or any later clause ). The file used in src.rpm do not seems to be the same as the one upstream on github : $ file ansible-0.3.tar.gz /tmp/ansible-0.3.tar.gz ansible-0.3.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, was dist/ansible-0.3.tar, last modified: Mon Apr 30 18:30:36 2012, max compression /tmp/ansible-0.3.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, was ansible-0.3.tar, from Unix, last modified: Tue Apr 24 04:18:05 2012, max compression ( the 2nd is the one from github, the first is the one from the src.rpm ) I guess that's because you updated the spec in the tarball, and added the LICENSE. Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files., I think that the cp invocation fail this part of the guideline ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #9 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-05-01 21:16:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Seems the license is wrong, it should be GPLv3+, not GPLv3 ( ie, the or any later clause ). Good call! Fixed that. The file used in src.rpm do not seems to be the same as the one upstream on github : $ file ansible-0.3.tar.gz /tmp/ansible-0.3.tar.gz ansible-0.3.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, was dist/ansible-0.3.tar, last modified: Mon Apr 30 18:30:36 2012, max compression /tmp/ansible-0.3.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, was ansible-0.3.tar, from Unix, last modified: Tue Apr 24 04:18:05 2012, max compression ( the 2nd is the one from github, the first is the one from the src.rpm ) I guess that's because you updated the spec in the tarball, and added the LICENSE. Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files., I think that the cp invocation fail this part of the guideline ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps ) I see what I did. Instead of using the sources we published on github I was using a fresh 'make sdist' copy. To make sure I didn't mess anything up with the sources this time I copied the spec file out of the tree to a temp directory and put the github sources into ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES and *then* ran `rpmbuild -bs`. Result is a fresh srpm built off of the upstream sources (Which includes the proper license file). SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.3.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Spec: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec Sums (for your pleasure): http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.asc Thanks for taking the time to review this Michael! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #7 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-04-30 12:40:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) You have uploaded the bnary rpm instead of the src.rpm, and that's required to run fedora-review , and sorry, did forgot I started this review :/ Sorry about that, I uploaded both RPMs and linked the binary instead of the SRPM. Fixed that now: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Also, uploaded the new spec file: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec For %defattr, this is no longer needed on newer rpm version. %clean will default to rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, or something like that, so this can be removed too in new distribution ( can be kept of course ). And that's the same for the rm just at the %install, it is done by default nowadays. Decided we're not going to target EPEL 5: - Removed %defattr - Removed %clean - I think the email address is likely wrong ( unless me and LDAP missed a memo ) Good call. Fixed! - Guidelines also requires ( IIRC ) to ship the license file if present, or to ask to upstream to ship it if not. ( so that's the 2nd case here, so i just remind gently to do so :) ) Fixed that too! Also, re-built the man pages to show the correct version, 0.3. Thanks for taking the time to review this. I appreciate it a lot! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-04-27 16:21:14 EDT --- You have uploaded the bnary rpm instead of the src.rpm, and that's required to run fedora-review , and sorry, did forgot I started this review :/ For %defattr, this is no longer needed on newer rpm version. %clean will default to rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, or something like that, so this can be removed too in new distribution ( can be kept of course ). And that's the same for the rm just at the %install, it is done by default nowadays. - I think the email address is likely wrong ( unless me and LDAP missed a memo ) - Guidelines also requires ( IIRC ) to ship the license file if present, or to ask to upstream to ship it if not. ( so that's the 2nd case here, so i just remind gently to do so :) ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #5 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-04-25 12:26:06 EDT --- New version (0.3) requested for review: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec Just new version of the software. Spec file has a version bump + change log entry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #4 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-04-20 14:33:14 EDT --- I've updated the spec and srpm from what was in my last comment. Current latest sha256sum's: 5fcc5476235cc7f632618ff6bfe75966067084255d0d7cca6ab38f3388bac1e2 ansible-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm d59cf63e306fd5ad77793803e9e424b391fc643fa56b61d61ea79f4878fb2103 ansible.spec Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Diff from last time: %define _dusetup packaging/distutils/setup.py ... Requires: PyYAML There is now a 'Requires' on PyYAML, and there is a macro '_dusetup' for references to the distutils setup.py file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882
--- Comment #3 from Tim Bielawa tbiel...@redhat.com 2012-04-17 13:30:10 EDT
---
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
Ansible is a radically simple model-driven configuration management,
multi-node deployment, and remote task execution system. Ansible works
over SSH and does not require any software or daemons to be installed
on remote nodes. Extension modules can be written in any language and
are transferred to managed machines automatically.
(In reply to comment #1)
Hi,
a few note :
- you should explicitely say the version of python to use in BuildRequires
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Fixed.
- the python macro are already defined on Fedora, so no need to add them again
Fixed. Only set if RHEL 5. (We're targeting that in the future)
- Prefix is forbidden
Fixed.
- buildRoot should not be used, except for EPEL 5
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Fixed. Only set if RHEL 5.
- so does %defattr, %clean and rm in %install
I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please expand?
- --record=INSTALLED_FILES is not used, and is not recommended
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
Removed.
- it seems that %{_datadir}/ansible/ would end unowned
I think this is fixed now.
- I am not sure, but I think that -n %{name}-%{version} is uneeded, becuase
tha's the default
Correct. Removed this too.
- the guideline ask for consistency when using macro to reference path :
%config(noreplace) /etc/ansible/hosts
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ansible/
Fixed. Consolidated to just %{_sysconfdir}/ansible
- %{_mandir}/man1/*.gz
that's not mandatory, but I think that's better to not hardcode the prefix
used
here, as this could be changed in the future ( ie, be something else than gz )
Adjusted this too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 John Eckersberg jecke...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tbiel...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from John Eckersberg jecke...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 11:41:17 EDT --- Adding Tim Bielawa to Cc, as he will be handling the packaging going forward. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-04-04 12:48:19 EDT ---
Hi,
a few note :
- you should explicitely say the version of python to use in BuildRequires
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- the python macro are already defined on Fedora, so no need to add them again
- Prefix is forbidden
- buildRoot should not be used, except for EPEL 5
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- so does %defattr, %clean and rm in %install
- --record=INSTALLED_FILES is not used, and is not recommended
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
- it seems that %{_datadir}/ansible/ would end unowned
- I am not sure, but I think that -n %{name}-%{version} is uneeded, becuase
tha's the default
- the guideline ask for consistency when using macro to reference path :
%config(noreplace) /etc/ansible/hosts
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ansible/
- %{_mandir}/man1/*.gz
that's not mandatory, but I think that's better to not hardcode the prefix used
here, as this could be changed in the future ( ie, be something else than gz )
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
