[Bug 2120106] New: Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Bug ID: 2120106 Summary: Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tacacs/tacacs.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tacacs/tacacs-F4.0.4.28.6fb%5E20220...
Description: Tacacs+ (tac_plus) is a C daemon that authenticates requests via the Tacacs+ Protocol and logs accounting information.
This is a fork of Cisco + Shruberry's Tacacas+ daemons (http://www.shrubbery.net/tac_plus/)
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91101124
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel@michel-slm.name
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tacacs/tacacs.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tacacs/tacacs-F4.0.4.28.7fb~2022090...
Changelog: - update to a new git snapshot - update license tag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Going to review the rest of it, but... the version numbering is really weird. I'd consider dropping the 'F'. The 'fb' is probably OK though unusual.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_handl...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- The Debian package is https://packages.debian.org/buster/tacacs+ with version number 4.0.4.27a-3 for instance. Per the examples in the guidelines, I guess apart from the leading F everything else is fine including the snapshot ~ convention (date g hash)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com)
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Looks mostly fine apart from: - version (see above) - naming -- should we just name this tacacs+ ? It's the name Debian uses, and + is actually OK in package names: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_common_ch... - should the service file be named tacacs+.service too matching the package name?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. [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", "MIT License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "NTP License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 92 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2120106-tacacs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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). [!]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 133120 bytes in 4 files. [x]: 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]: 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 %license. [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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in tacacs [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tacacs- libs , tacacs-devel , tacacs-extra [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 7
tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpam.so.0 tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libcrypt.so.2 tacacs-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tacacs-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64 tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/tac_pwd-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/sbin/tac_plus-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 debug (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 session (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 summarise_incoming_packet_type (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 dump_nas_pak (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 cfg_get_host_prompt (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 tac_malloc (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 tac_realloc (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 tac_strdup (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 cfg_get_host_key (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 md5_xor (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 dump_tacacs_pak (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 tac_lockfd (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 report (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-libs.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0 summarise_outgoing_packet_type (/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0) tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tacacs-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64 tacacs-extra.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert tacacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tacacs-extra.x86_64: W: no-documentation tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation tacacs-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation tacacs.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/tac_plus tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/tacacs-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64 tacacs-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libtacacs.so.1.0.0-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug' ldd: exited with unknown exit code (135)
tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/tac_pwd-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/tac_pwd-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/sbin/tac_plus-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/sbin/tac_plus-F4.0.4.28.7fb~20220905g25fd8f0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
tacacs-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-extra.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3 tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz tacacs-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f7/15d2f9ae421b8971c270d0c761bad3a77a411a ../../../.build-id/f7/15d2f9ae421b8971c270d0c761bad3a77a411a tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/4a/bbde7f4f86e14718e4927ad8f6ceb36cd73712 ../../../.build-id/4a/bbde7f4f86e14718e4927ad8f6ceb36cd73712 tacacs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/70/8ea18a52dd6db12542993829442c0b9410f723 ../../../.build-id/70/8ea18a52dd6db12542993829442c0b9410f723 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 21 warnings, 22 badness; has taken 3.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/tac_plus/archive/25fd8f0eae7cd3db6a218508670d957... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25c7a7d1d5d5c6c69f5dec71656289c388fa80134c986012a458f9e5963ab817 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25c7a7d1d5d5c6c69f5dec71656289c388fa80134c986012a458f9e5963ab817
Requires -------- tacacs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libtacacs.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tacacs-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tacacs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtacacs.so.1()(64bit) tacacs-libs(x86-64)
tacacs-extra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python3 tacacs
tacacs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tacacs-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- tacacs: tacacs tacacs(x86-64)
tacacs-libs: libtacacs.so.1()(64bit) tacacs-libs tacacs-libs(x86-64)
tacacs-devel: tacacs-devel tacacs-devel(x86-64)
tacacs-extra: tacacs-extra tacacs-extra(x86-64)
tacacs-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tacacs-debuginfo tacacs-debuginfo(x86-64)
tacacs-debugsource: tacacs-debugsource tacacs-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120106 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, PHP, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Oh, and description has a typo: Tacacas+ probably should be Tacacs+. I don't see references to the former in the Shrubbery website.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com) |
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- per offline discussion, since F-prefixed versions sort below versions without it, and the F is used consistently in the source code, let's just leave it for now. And the code consistently mentions Tacacs instead of Tacacs+ so naming is OK too.
$ rpmdev-vercmp F4.0.4.28.6fb 4.0.4.28.6fb F4.0.4.28.6fb < 4.0.4.28.6fb
APPROVED - just fix the typo in the description
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #9 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo tacacs 2120106 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48111 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo tacacs f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48112 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo tacacs f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48113 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo tacacs f35 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48114 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo tacacs epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48115 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo tacacs epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48116
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tacacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-514c130c3f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-514c130c3f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-10-11 11:05:07
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-514c130c3f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com