[Bug 1891022] New: Review Request: jacktrip - A system for high-quality audio network performance over the Internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Bug ID: 1891022 Summary: Review Request: jacktrip - A system for high-quality audio network performance over the Internet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.ucar86@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip.spec SRPM URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54049346
Description: JackTrip is a Linux and Mac OS X-based system used for multi-machine network performance over the Internet. It supports any number of channels (as many as the computer/network can handle) of bidirectional, high quality, uncompressed audio signal steaming.
Fedora Account System Username: iucar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erich@ericheickmeyer.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |erich@ericheickmeyer.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com ---
Notes:
- Licensecheck came back with BSD-2-clause, MIT, GPLv2, and LGPLv2.1+ - BSD-2-clause: externals/includes/rtaudio-4.0.6/include/soundcard.h externals/includes/rtaudio-4.0.7/include/soundcard.h externals/rtaudio-4.1.1/include/soundcard.h - Looks like externals/includes/jack/control.h is GPL-2 and has an obsolete FSF address. - These files came back LGPLv2.1+ (* has obsolete FSF address, inform upstream): externals/includes/jack/intclient.h externals/includes/jack/jack.h externals/includes/jack/jslist.h externals/includes/jack/midiport.h externals/includes/jack/ringbuffer.h externals/includes/jack/statistics.h externals/includes/jack/thread.h externals/includes/jack/transport.h externals/includes/jack/types.h externals/includes/jack/systemdeps.h* You will want to remark these and add them to the license field.
Other than that, looks good. Simply fix those, and it'll be approved. :)
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8427520 bytes in 329 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 76 files have unknown license. - SEE NOTES ABOVE [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8478720 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-debugsource-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm jacktrip.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings.
- The changelog time can be safely ignored, I live on the US West Coast which might be throwing the date.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jacktrip-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jacktrip.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> jacktrip-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> jacktrip-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-10-24 jacktrip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip/archive/v1.2.1/jacktrip-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9565b3a041698563682a51f600a999c75ece60a59d6c15f6401519e0c146398 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9565b3a041698563682a51f600a999c75ece60a59d6c15f6401519e0c146398
Requires -------- jacktrip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
jacktrip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jacktrip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- jacktrip: jacktrip jacktrip(x86-64)
jacktrip-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jacktrip-debuginfo jacktrip-debuginfo(x86-64)
jacktrip-debugsource: jacktrip-debugsource jacktrip-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1891022 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Java, Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #2 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip.spec SRPM URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
Oh, I forgot to delete that folder. The build does not use does (that's for macOS and Windows, I suppose). Now removed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #3 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- *does not use those
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #4 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com ---
Looks like you need to make a -doc subpackage. The documentation size is rather large. Other than that it looks really good now!
So, I guess just make that -doc subpackage and I should be able to stamp it as approved. :)
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8427520 bytes in 329 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "Expat License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/erich/Documents/jacktrip/licensecheck.txt - Unknown falls under the project license (Expat/MIT) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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
===== 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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8478720 bytes in /usr/share - This appears to be the docs, see above [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-debugsource-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jacktrip-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jacktrip-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> jacktrip.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> jacktrip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- This is pretty common for github URLs (they don't like to be checked)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jacktrip/jacktrip/archive/v1.2.1/jacktrip-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9565b3a041698563682a51f600a999c75ece60a59d6c15f6401519e0c146398 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9565b3a041698563682a51f600a999c75ece60a59d6c15f6401519e0c146398
Requires -------- jacktrip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
jacktrip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jacktrip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- jacktrip: jacktrip jacktrip(x86-64)
jacktrip-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jacktrip-debuginfo jacktrip-debuginfo(x86-64)
jacktrip-debugsource: jacktrip-debugsource jacktrip-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ./jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm -r Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, Python, fonts, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #5 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip.spec SRPM URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jacktrip-1.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
Right, in this way, the main package is just 77 kB! :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Assignee|erich@ericheickmeyer.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- Yep, that did the trick. Looks good now!
Package is APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #7 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Thanks! Let me know if you need a review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |erich@ericheickmeyer.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jacktrip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809
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=1891022
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0
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=1891022
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-11-04 03:01:06
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4333baf1d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891022
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-fe63d70809 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com