RFE: .spec linting support #115
Assignees
Labels
Comments
|
I like the idea! |
|
It's been a long time since this was opened and we still hit the issue all the time. Do you think we'll a solution soon? |
|
I finally have free cycles to start working on this along with related #66 \o/ |
sf-project-io
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 25, 2019
Switch from old sanity_check to new lint interface. This shouldn't change functionality expect slightly different output on .spec errors. Related: #115 Change-Id: I3d3dc6819292fb19783f914e92f6e75afe010e51
sf-project-io
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 26, 2019
Errors are highlighted in red, warnings in yellow, and success in green. First word of lint message is printed in bold as it's usually the error name. This makes parsing lint output much easier/faster \o/ Note: Colors are disabled for non-interactive stdout by default. Related: #115 Change-Id: I51cc66c089cea79d893e2e833dfb5e6fa4e16c55
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In order for
rdopkgto fix the.specinstead of just warning about problemand failing (specfile.sanity_check), more transparent linting mechanism is needed that
allows:
.specerrors (rdopkg lint/rdopkg check).specerrors (rdopkg lint --fix)rdopkg patch/new-versionintegration. Fail on lint warning and tell user to fix with dedicatedrdopkg lint --fixor additional command option a la--fix-issuesto avoid touching people's.specfiles in ways they didn't expect duringpatch/new-version.patch/new-versionso make it easy to select subset of checks/fixes to perform..specchecks: RFC: Integrate 'rpmlint' #66, better handling of setup.cfg whitespace patch issues #110, RFE: better support for patching setup.cfg files #112, autosetup in prep section needs p1 flag added. #114The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: