[Bug 2235086] New: Review Request: python-uritools - URI parsing, classification and composition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Bug ID: 2235086 Summary: Review Request: python-uritools - URI parsing, classification and composition Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebob.m@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc38.sr...
Description: This module provides RFC 3986 compliant functions for parsing, classifying and composing URIs and URI references, largely replacing the Python Standard Library's urllib.parse module.
Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg:
[copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:eclipseo:scancode-toolkit] name=Copr repo for scancode-toolkit owned by eclipseo baseurl=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit... type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=True gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit... repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com --- Hi
I am happy to review this if you can review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2240313 in return.
Regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2235083 (python-spdx-tools)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235083 [Bug 2235083] Review Request: python-spdx-tools - Python library to parse, validate and create SPDX documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #2 from Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com --- Hi
Review output:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/navid/Workspace/review/python- uritools/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9030 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: 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. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [X]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-uritools [X]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X]: %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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-uritools-doc-4.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfihhjhn8')] checks: 31, packages: 3
============================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tkem/uritools/archive/v4.0.1/uritools-4.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80970aea7c4b65500dd9d2363b073ab1c8be78d63affd7e9fcbe49b5f52b633d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80970aea7c4b65500dd9d2363b073ab1c8be78d63affd7e9fcbe49b5f52b633d
Requires -------- python3-uritools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-uritools-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-uritools: python-uritools python3-uritools python3.12-uritools python3.12dist(uritools) python3dist(uritools)
python-uritools-doc: python-uritools-doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #3 from Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com --- Small update on previous review template:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/navid/Workspace/review/python- uritools/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9030 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [X]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [X]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-uritools [X]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X]: %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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-uritools-doc-4.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfihhjhn8')] checks: 31, packages: 3
============================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tkem/uritools/archive/v4.0.1/uritools-4.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80970aea7c4b65500dd9d2363b073ab1c8be78d63affd7e9fcbe49b5f52b633d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80970aea7c4b65500dd9d2363b073ab1c8be78d63affd7e9fcbe49b5f52b633d
Requires -------- python3-uritools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-uritools-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-uritools: python-uritools python3-uritools python3.12-uritools python3.12dist(uritools) python3dist(uritools)
python-uritools-doc: python-uritools-doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #4 from Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107692823
approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- Navid, when you approve the review you should set Flag fedora-review to + because that is what rel-engs tooling is actually checking. It is that the top of this page in right column.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(n.yaghoobi.s@gmai | |l.com)
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritools-4.0.1-1.fc39.sr...
Could you put the flag + for the review please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6544376 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(n.yaghoobi.s@gmai | |l.com) |
--- Comment #8 from Navid Yaghoobi n.yaghoobi.s@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #5)
Navid, when you approve the review you should set Flag fedora-review to + because that is what rel-engs tooling is actually checking. It is that the top of this page in right column.
Thanks alot for the information, flag set.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Navid!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-uritools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f6fb42638c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f6fb42638c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c
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=2235086
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63
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=2235086
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f6fb42638c 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-2023-f6fb42638c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f6fb42638c
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=2235086
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-11-03 18:47:21
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8f3d315a63 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235086
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4595043b7c 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=2235086
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f6fb42638c 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