[PATCH] Fix non-specific clean message for EPEL5 %clean

[Richard Marko]

According to guidelines, this is only required for EPEL5:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean

Signed-off-by: Richard Marko <rmarko(a)redhat.com&gt;
---
 src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py b/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
index 8a4a88d..31a25be 100644
--- a/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
+++ b/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ class CheckClean(CheckBase):
 
     def run(self):
         passed = True
-        msg = 'Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required'
+        msg = 'Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required'
         sec_clean = self.spec.get_section('%clean')
         for sec in sec_clean:
             sec_lines = sec_clean[sec]
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ class CheckClean(CheckBase):
                 for line in sec_lines:
                     if regex.search(line):
                         passed = False
-                        msg = 'Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL'
+                        msg = 'Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5'
                         break
         self.set_passed(passed, msg)
 
-- 
1.7.11.2

[Alec Leamas]

On 08/08/2012 06:43 PM, Richard Marko wrote:
>  According to guidelines, this is only required for EPEL5:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
>
>  Signed-off-by: Richard Marko <rmarko(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  ---
>    src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py | 4 ++--
>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>  diff --git a/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py b/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
>  index 8a4a88d..31a25be 100644
>  --- a/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
>  +++ b/src/FedoraReview/checks/generic.py
>  @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ class CheckClean(CheckBase):
>    
>        def run(self):
>            passed = True
>  -        msg = 'Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required'
>  +        msg = 'Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required'
>            sec_clean = self.spec.get_section('%clean')
>            for sec in sec_clean:
>                sec_lines = sec_clean[sec]
>  @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ class CheckClean(CheckBase):
>                    for line in sec_lines:
>                        if regex.search(line):
>                            passed = False
>  -                        msg = 'Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL'
>  +                        msg = 'Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5'
>                            break
>            self.set_passed(passed, msg)
>     
Thanks for patch. I have committed this into the devel branch. 
Unfortunately, it's propably too late for 0.2.1, though.

--alec

[Mikolaj Izdebski]

>  Thanks for patch. I have committed this into the devel branch. 
>  Unfortunately, it's propably too late for 0.2.1, though. 
Are patches preferred to bug reports in Trac? If yes, then against
which branch should I prepare them?

Thanks,
Mikolaj

[Alec Leamas]

On 08/08/2012 07:35 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > Thanks for patch. I have committed this into the devel branch.
> > Unfortunately, it's propably too late for 0.2.1, though.
>  Are patches preferred to bug reports in Trac? If yes, then against
>  which branch should I prepare them?
>
>  T 
Definitely not!  Trac issues are superior. I took this right off because 
it was simple enough not to require any discussion, and take  a very 
small chance to get it into 0.2.1.

--alec

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 19:44 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
>  On 08/08/2012 07:35 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>  >> Thanks for patch. I have committed this into the devel branch.
>  >> Unfortunately, it's propably too late for 0.2.1, though.
>  > Are patches preferred to bug reports in Trac? If yes, then against
>  > which branch should I prepare them?
>  >
>  > T
>  Definitely not!  Trac issues are superior. I took this right off because 
>  it was simple enough not to require any discussion, and take  a very 
>  small chance to get it into 0.2.1. 
Well, we do like trac ticket with patches ;-)

Pierre