[Bug 1034523] New: Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Bug ID: 1034523 Summary: Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lars@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/raw/master/sqlcli.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/raw/review/sqlcli-1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This is a tool that uses SQLAlchemy to execute SQL queries against a SQL database specified via a URL or an INI-style file. Fedora Account System Username:lars@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #1 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- Ugh, sorry, this is what I get for doing this too late in the evening. Correcting the above information:
Fedora Account System Username: larsks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- 1. URL: https://github.com/larsks/sqlcli/
2. BuildRequires: python -->
BuildRequires: python2-devel
3. %{python_sitelib} --> %{python2_sitelib}
4. Better give a version(tag) on github.
5. %install
requirements.txt
python setup.py install --root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-->
%build %{__python2} setup.py build
%install %{__python2} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} -O1 --skip-build --root=%{buildroot}
6. %files section should be:
%doc README.md %{_bindir}/sqlcli %{python_sitelib}/sqlcli-1-py*.egg-info %{python_sitelib}/sqlcli
7. No license file included as %doc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kchamart@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- Yes, agreed with Christopher Meng's comments, please address them, some more comments below:
* The reasoning for s/python/python2 is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros -- "The unversioned macro, %{__python} is deprecated. You should use %{__python2} to explicitly reference the python2 interpreter instead. This is future proofing for the time when things will be switched over to python3 by default instead of python2."
* You need a sponsor (I notice you raised FE-NEEDSPONSOR). I'm not one. But I can review the package.
Just for reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor
* And, here are a few rpmlint failures: ========================= Rpmlint ------- Checking: sqlcli-1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm sqlcli-1-1.fc20.src.rpm sqlcli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility. sqlcli.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL sqlcli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli sqlcli.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility. sqlcli.src: W: invalid-license GPL sqlcli.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sqlcli sqlcli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility. sqlcli.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL sqlcli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' =========================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #4 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- Thanks for the comments! You'll find an updated spec file (and SRPM) here:
https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/tree/review/sqlcli-2-2
The direct links are:
- https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/raw/review/sqlcli-2-2/sqlcli.spec - https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/raw/review/sqlcli-2-2/sqlcli-2-2.f...
Validation:
$ rpmlint sqlcli.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/sqlcli-2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kchamart@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #5 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build successful:
$ koji build --scratch rawhide sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm Uploading srpm: sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:01 17.46 KiB 11.24 KiB/sec Created task: 6232022 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6232022 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder13.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6232023 buildArch (sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6232023 buildArch (sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder13.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed
6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm) completed successfully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #6 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- Couple more comments, I forgot to note these:
(1) s/GPLv3/GPLv3+
(2) LICENSE file not included
$ tree ../1034523-sqlcli/ | grep -i LICENSE ├── licensecheck.txt
(3) Also, rpmlint throws this to me:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sqlcli sqlcli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility. sqlcli.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL sqlcli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Maybe, this could be useful: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_l...
(4) Posting the review tool results here for the record, manual review upcoming:
$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1034523 [. . .]
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1034523-sqlcli/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sqlcli-2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm sqlcli-2-2.fc20.src.rpm sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sqlcli sqlcli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility. sqlcli.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL sqlcli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- sqlcli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-prettytable python-sqlalchemy python2
Provides -------- sqlcli: sqlcli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lars@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(lars@redhat.com)
--- Comment #7 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- Lars, I'll finish manual review if you could address the points from Comment #6.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lars@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #8 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- Kashyap: As we had discussed on IRC, I think most of the points in comment #6 were addressed weeks ago. Are you sure you're testing against the updated package sources? See comment #4; you'll note that rpmlint only throws the "sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli" warning against this spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #9 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- (In reply to Lars Kellogg-Stedman from comment #8)
Kashyap: As we had discussed on IRC, I think most of the points in comment #6 were addressed weeks ago. Are you sure you're testing against the updated package sources? See comment #4; you'll note that rpmlint only throws the "sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli" warning against this spec file.
Lars, you're right - I incorrectly misremembered from our IRC conv. that there's something waiting on your side.
I just re-ran with explicit SPEC file:
$ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm
And, yes:
$ grep "rpmlint\ sqlcli" /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sqlcli/review.txt -A4 # rpmlint sqlcli sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Will post the manual review, sorry for this delay.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #10 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- (In reply to Kashyap Chamarthy from comment #9)
(In reply to Lars Kellogg-Stedman from comment #8)
Kashyap: As we had discussed on IRC, I think most of the points in comment #6 were addressed weeks ago.
I just remembered, assuming the below is the latest SPEC
https://raw.github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/review/sqlcli-2-2/sqlcli.spec
these two points are still valid :)
(1) s/GPLv3/GPLv3+ # This you agreed to on IRC, as an upstream author.
(2) LICENSE file not included ==== $ ls sqlcli BUILD dependencies licensecheck.txt review-env.sh rpmlint.txt srpm upstream build.log files.dir results review.txt rpms-unpacked srpm-unpacked upstream-unpacked $ tree sqlcli | grep LICENSE $ echo $? 1 ====
Are you sure you're testing against the
updated package sources? See comment #4; you'll note that rpmlint only throws the "sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli" warning against this spec file.
Lars, you're right - I incorrectly misremembered from our IRC conv. that there's something waiting on your side.
I just re-ran with explicit SPEC file:
$ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm
And, yes:
$ grep "rpmlint\ sqlcli" /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sqlcli/review.txt -A4 # rpmlint sqlcli sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Will post the manual review, sorry for this delay.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #11 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- Kashyap: my bad, I had uncomitted changes in my local tree. Please see:
https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/tree/review/sqlcli-2-3
Including:
- spec file: https://raw.github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/review/sqlcli-2-3/sqlcli.spec - source rpm: https://github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/raw/review/sqlcli-2-3/sqlcli-2-3.f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #12 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- TL;DR: Looks good; scratch build successful. Approved - from a package review perspective.
However: I'm not a sponsor, you need to wait someone to sponsor you for Fedora package collection.
Long:
1. Manual Review ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===== 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. - GPLv3+ [x]: 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. === $ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm $ cd sqlcli $ tree | grep COPYING │ ├── COPYING
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sqlcli/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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
$ cat ./rpms-unpacked/sqlcli-2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli-1-py2.7.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ==== $ tree ./rpms-unpacked/sqlcli-2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli-1-py2.7.egg-info
./rpms-unpacked/sqlcli-2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli-1-py2.7.egg-info ├── dependency_links.txt ├── entry_points.txt ├── PKG-INFO ├── requires.txt ├── SOURCES.txt └── top_level.txt ==== [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
2. Scratch build ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With latest SRPM, successful:
kashyap@SRPMS$ koji build --scratch f21 sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm Uploading srpm: sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:01 17.65 KiB 16.16 KiB/sec Created task: 6301871 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6301871 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6301871 build (f21, sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm): free 6301871 build (f21, sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-21.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 6301872 buildArch (sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 6301872 buildArch (sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6301871 build (f21, sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm): open (buildvm-21.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed
6301871 build (f21, sqlcli-2-3.fc19.src.rpm) completed successfully kashyap@SRPMS$
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST CC| |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|kchamart@redhat.com |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(lars@redhat.com)
--- Comment #13 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- I've reviewed this package as a sponsor and came to the same result as Kashyap Chamarthy. So I'm going to sponsor you. But please make sure your FAS-email and your rhbz-email are the same / in sync:
'lars@oddbit.com,' != 'lars@redhat.com'
You may have problems with privilegs on rhbz otherwise...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lars@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #14 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- Thanks. I've fixed the email address in FAS. As I understand it my next step is to follow the "New Packages" section of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #15 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Yes, that would be the correct procedure. Please add me "besser82" to `InitialCC:` then. :D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #16 from Lars Kellogg-Stedman lars@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sqlcli Short Description: A command-line SQL query utility Owners: larsks Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: besser82
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
No new branches for f18 are being created.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlcli-2-3.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlcli-2-3.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #22 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- any updates on this bug? This is still open? Looks like bodhi failed to close this automatically.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #23 from Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com --- Parag, do you know what's missing here and why is Bodhi failing to close this automatically?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #24 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- #fedora-admin is the place where we can get the reason behind this. But I have seen sometimes it happens if bodhi/bugzilla starts acting weird then it failed to send/receive notification on bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #25 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- According to koji [1] this has been built for el6, fc19, fc20 and rawhide, but there has never been an update for F20?!? Koji has trashed the build for fc20 already. According to Bodhi [2] there was no update submitted for fc20. Please rebuild and push an update for fc20 && rawhide, because otherwise there will be problems with the upgrade-path from fc19 to fc20, because of a missing package...
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17489 [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/sqlcli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sqlcli-2-4.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2014-05-24 11:58:57
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |sqlcli-2-4.fc20 Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- sqlcli-2-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla