[Bug 839701] New: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bug ID: 839701 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wfp5p@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word.
Fedora Account System Username: wfp
I would like to eventually package Rose::DB::Object, this module is required for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org Summary|Determine if words are |Determine if words are |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL |standard. There are also |standard. |sub modules that determine | |if a particular database | |server reserves the word. | Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Determine if words are |Review Request: |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL |perl-SQL-ReservedWords - |standard. |Determine if words are | |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL | |standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |839751
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |839754
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jplesnik@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jplesnik@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [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 Package is not relocatable. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install.
TODO: * Add the patch attached to the bug https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=28367 * Remove Buildroot: * Remove %clean section * Remove defattr(....) from the section %file * Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from section %install * Add to BuildRequires perl(constant) -- (./lib/SQL/ReservedWords.pm:9) * Add to Requires perl(Pod::Usage) -- (./scripts/sqlrw:59)
Please fix all TODO items and provide new spec.
Package is NOT approved.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #2 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu --- Updated to address above comments:
Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-3.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova jplesnik@redhat.com --- Changes are ok.
I have only one more thing. Please add the comment with link of bug before the Patch0. Just to know what it is fixing.
Please update the spec before you commit it.
Package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@virginia.edu --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-SQL-ReservedWords Short Description: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-26 18:26:56
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #13 from Bill Pemberton wfp5p@worldbroken.com --- Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: perl-SQL-ReservedWords Short Description: Simple object base class Owners: wfp Branches: el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wfp5p@worldbroken.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla