[Bug 2174438] New: Review Request: painless-password-rotation - Automates password rotation using HashiCorp Vault
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
Bug ID: 2174438 Summary: Review Request: painless-password-rotation - Automates password rotation using HashiCorp Vault Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cn137@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: This package automates password rotation using HashiCorp Vault and a simple Bash script. Scripts run in a systemd timer to dynamically update local system passwords on a regular basis. Fedora Account System Username: cn137
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/cn137/pa | |inless-password-rotation
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5583041 (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=2174438
Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rcallicotte@mailbox.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rcallicotte@mailbox.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #2 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- I am looking into this, but got called away for an emergency. I will update with my review notes as soon as i get back.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #3 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Summary of Changes: * Updated spec with Man Pages * Package new (latest) version * Removed lua output
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1948674 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1948674&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5583041 to 5603067
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5603067 (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=2174438
--- Comment #6 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Review Items ============
In the spec file, the line: install -m 0600 vault-rotate %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/vault-rotate
Generates the following rpmlint error: painless-password-rotation.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/vault-rotate 600
Is this file supposed to be readable only by the root user? According to the guidelines[1], the default mode for files is 644. Please advise.
The following review message was observed: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
This can be remedied by adding install's "p" flag to the %install lines below: install -m 0755 rotate-linux-password.sh %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/rotate-linux-password.sh install -m 0644 systemd/rotate-password.service %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/rotate-password.service install -m 0644 systemd/rotate-password.timer %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/rotate-password.timer install -m 0600 vault-rotate %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/vault-rotate
The following lines:
BuildRequires: systemd Requires(post): systemd Requires(preun): systemd Requires(postun): systemd
Can be simplified with: %{?systemd_requires}
It is your choice if you want to use the short for or not.
[1] - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #7 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Summary of Changes: * Added preserve timestamp * Updated BuildRequires (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_syste...)
In regards to file: painless-password-rotation.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/vault-rotate 600 This is intentionally set to 0600 since it is meant to store a token that the API uses to communicate with the Vault Server The token should only be accessed by the root user to avoid misuse and potential sealing of the server; brute force attempts.
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.3-2.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1949074 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1949074&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5603067 to 5615159
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5615159 (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=2174438
--- Comment #10 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Due to a technical issue and error on my part, i had to re-create the upstream repo. I hope this does not cause any confusion. Verison tag is back to 0.1 Will follow proper versioning and best practice form this point onwards.
Updates:
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98463393
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1949167 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1949167&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5615159 to 5616498
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5616498 (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=2174438
--- Comment #13 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Salman,
The latest update shows discrepancies in your spec file:
painless-password-rotation.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib painless-password-rotation.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/vault-rotate 600 painless-password-rotation.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rotate-linux-password.sh painless-password-rotation.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 ['0.1-1.fc39', '0.1-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Name: painless-password-rotation Version: 0.1 Release: 1%{?dist}
%changelog
- Mon Mar 06 2023 Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com - 0.3-1
- Initial build
Your changelog entry needs to match the V-R entries listed in the preamble.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #14 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Summary of Changes: * Corrected script name to match man page; resolving: no-manual-page-for-binary rotate-linux-password.sh
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1949408 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1949408&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5616498 to 5619223
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5619223 (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=2174438
--- Comment #17 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Summary of Changes: * Updated manpage
Spec URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation.spec SRPM URL: https://cn137.fedorapeople.org/painless-password-rotation-0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1949413 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1949413&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5619223 to 5619338
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5619338 (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=2174438
--- Comment #20 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Official Review:
This package is approved. See fedora-review output below.
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packer/fedora- review/2174438-painless-password-rotation/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 painless-password-rotation [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: painless-password-rotation-0.3-1.fc39.noarch.rpm painless-password-rotation-0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm =================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmpwycjma6n')] checks: 31, packages: 2
painless-password-rotation.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib painless-password-rotation.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/vault-rotate 600 ==================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s ===================================================
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: 2.4.0 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
painless-password-rotation.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib painless-password-rotation.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/vault-rotate 600 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cn137/painless-password-rotation/archive/0.3/painless-pas... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a1a77db725455210fb77fe714d97578285c09eed02b5b1b0da3b08b1ea3ee1a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a1a77db725455210fb77fe714d97578285c09eed02b5b1b0da3b08b1ea3ee1a1
Requires -------- painless-password-rotation (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash config(painless-password-rotation)
Provides -------- painless-password-rotation: config(painless-password-rotation) painless-password-rotation
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2174438 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Perl, fonts, Java, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/painless-password-rotation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #22 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Branch Request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51868 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51869 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51870 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51871 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51872 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51873
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-03-09 21:13:19
--- Comment #23 from Salman Butt cn137@protonmail.com --- Build Success Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2167744
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-509bbdf58d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-509bbdf58d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b87f25b5cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b87f25b5cf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6065fdb4ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6065fdb4ac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0a7acf6022 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0a7acf6022
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3f467146e3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3f467146e3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-509bbdf58d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-509bbdf58d
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=2174438
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6065fdb4ac 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-2023-6065fdb4ac
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=2174438
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3f467146e3 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-2023-3f467146e3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3f467146e3
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=2174438
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b87f25b5cf 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-b87f25b5cf
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=2174438
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0a7acf6022 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-2023-0a7acf6022
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=2174438
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3b4f9763b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-3b4f9763b0 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3b4f9763b0
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=2174438
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b87f25b5cf 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=2174438
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-509bbdf58d 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=2174438
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3b4f9763b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0a7acf6022 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=2174438
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3f467146e3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174438
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6065fdb4ac has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com