[Bug 2143071] New: Review Request: python-colcon-override-check - Extension for colcon to check for problems overriding installed packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Bug ID: 2143071 Summary: Review Request: python-colcon-override-check - Extension for colcon to check for problems overriding installed packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-override-check/python-colcon-... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-override-check/python-colcon-...
Description: An extension for colcon-core to check for potential problems when overriding installed packages. Most notably, warn the user when overriding a package upon which other packages in an underlay depend, but ones which are not also being overridden.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: f35 f36 f37 epel9 epel8 epel7 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94223634
I intend for the spec file of this package to align with the style of the other 34 colcon packages already part of Fedora and EPEL. With so many packages in this group built across all supported platforms in Fedora and EPEL, maintenance is a burden and it's really helpful that all of the spec files look the same.
I understand that there are newer packaging macros for Python available in Fedora, and I'd like to consider using them at a later date and making the change in all of the colcon packages at once.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jasmin.marwad@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com --- 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/2143071-python-colcon-override-check/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]: 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]: 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]: 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 [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 1
python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/colcon_override_check-0.0.1-py3.11.egg-info/zip-safe /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/colcon_override_check-0.0.1-py3.11.egg-info/dependency_links.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/colcon/colcon-override-check/archive/0.0.1/colcon-overrid... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c97c614cac4703ed3709109a38791e7601c20892a00af91438fc5a10829308cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c97c614cac4703ed3709109a38791e7601c20892a00af91438fc5a10829308cc
Requires -------- python3-colcon-override-check (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(colcon-core) python3.11dist(colcon-installed-package-information)
Provides -------- python3-colcon-override-check: python-colcon-override-check python3-colcon-override-check python3.11-colcon-override-check python3.11dist(colcon-override-check) python3dist(colcon-override-check)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jasmin/2143071-python-colcon-override-check/srpm/python-colcon-override-check.spec 2023-02-03 23:36:37.088051261 -0500 +++ /home/jasmin/2143071-python-colcon-override-check/srpm-unpacked/python-colcon-override-check.spec 2022-11-10 18:18:55.000000000 -0500 @@ -34,5 +34,5 @@ An extension for colcon-core to check for potential problems when overriding installed packages. Most notably, warn the user when overriding a package upon -which other packages in an underlay depend, but ones which are not also being +which other pacakges in an underlay depend, but ones which are not also being overridden.
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143071 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1225692
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225692 [Bug 1225692] Tracker for Fedora Robotics SIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@nwra.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |orion@nwra.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'ASL 2.0'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff).
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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: 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]: 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 185 bytes in 1 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?) [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: [-]: 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. [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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-colcon-override-check-0.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-colcon-override-check-0.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphmcr394p')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-colcon-override-check.src: E: spelling-error ('pacakges', '%description -l en_US pacakges -> packages, pancakes') python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pacakges', '%description -l en_US pacakges -> packages, pancakes') python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: W: python-missing-require colcon-core python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: W: python-missing-require colcon-installed-package-information ===================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s =====================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1
python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pacakges', '%description -l en_US pacakges -> packages, pancakes') python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: W: python-missing-require colcon-core python3-colcon-override-check.noarch: W: python-missing-require colcon-installed-package-information 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/colcon/colcon-override-check/archive/0.0.1/colcon-overrid... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c97c614cac4703ed3709109a38791e7601c20892a00af91438fc5a10829308cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c97c614cac4703ed3709109a38791e7601c20892a00af91438fc5a10829308cc
Requires -------- python3-colcon-override-check (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(colcon-core) python3.12dist(colcon-installed-package-information)
Provides -------- python3-colcon-override-check: python-colcon-override-check python3-colcon-override-check python3.12-colcon-override-check python3.12dist(colcon-override-check) python3dist(colcon-override-check)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/orion/2143071-python-colcon-override-check/srpm/python-colcon-override-check.spec 2023-11-28 20:15:48.982717503 -0700 +++ /home/orion/2143071-python-colcon-override-check/srpm-unpacked/python-colcon-override-check.spec 2022-11-10 16:18:55.000000000 -0700 @@ -34,5 +34,5 @@ An extension for colcon-core to check for potential problems when overriding installed packages. Most notably, warn the user when overriding a package upon -which other packages in an underlay depend, but ones which are not also being +which other pacakges in an underlay depend, but ones which are not also being overridden.
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143071 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #3 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Thanks for the review. I've addressed both points.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-override-check/python-colcon-... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-override-check/python-colcon-... Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110290058
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/colcon/% | |{srcname}
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6750263 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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=2143071
Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Looks good. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #6 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-colcon-override-check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2b23bcfc74 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2b23bcfc74
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-12-14 01:47:11
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2b23bcfc74 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-edee567a4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-edee567a4e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-16b9ae7a4b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-16b9ae7a4b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-113a3e6a9f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-113a3e6a9f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-28c9266d57 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-28c9266d57
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-113a3e6a9f 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-2023-113a3e6a9f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-113a3e6a9f
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=2143071
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-16b9ae7a4b 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-2023-16b9ae7a4b
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=2143071
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f
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=2143071
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-28c9266d57 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-2023-28c9266d57
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=2143071
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-edee567a4e 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-edee567a4e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-edee567a4e
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=2143071
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-113a3e6a9f 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=2143071
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-626205795f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143071
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-edee567a4e 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=2143071
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-16b9ae7a4b 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=2143071
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-28c9266d57 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com