[Bug 2364306] New: Review Request: rust-app-rummage - Find installed and running applications on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Bug ID: 2364306 Summary: Review Request: rust-app-rummage - Find installed and running applications on Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://crates.io/crates/app-rummage Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: solomoncyj@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag... SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag...
Description: Find installed and running applications on Linux.
Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8999906 (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=2364306
solomoncyj@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2359652
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359652 [Bug 2359652] Review Request: mission-center - Monitor your CPU, Memory, Disk, Network and GPU usage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. I noted:
Tests are disabled.
+%bcond check 0 +# test tests::test_available_applications failing +# https://gitlab.com/mission-center-devs/app-detection/-/issues/1
It does not make sense to disable the tests entirely due to one failing test; you can use something like this instead, in rust2rpm.toml:
[tests] comments = [ "https://gitlab.com/mission-center-devs/app-detection/-/issues/1", ] skip-exact = true skip = [ "tests::test_available_applications" ]
In this case, though, a fix has been merged upstream, so you would be better off backporting it:
[[package.extra-patches]] number = 10 file = "https://gitlab.com/mission-center-devs/app-detection/-/merge_requests/1.patc..." comments = [ "Resolve tests::test_available_applications failing", ]
The metadata is patched:
+# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes +Patch: app-rummage-fix-metadata.diff
The actual change here is reasonable,
[dependencies.nix] -version = "0.30" +version = ">=0.29, <0.31"
However, you should have some kind of a comment explaining what the patch does, and preferably providing upstream status per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_shou....
A good way to do this is in rust2rpm.toml:
[package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ "Allow nix 0.29 until we have 0.30 packaged", ]
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/app- rummage-0.2.8/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- Please skip the failing test or, better, backport the fix as a patch, rather than disabling all tests. See the notes above the Issues section.
- Please add an appropriate comment for the metadata patch.
===== 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2364306-rust-app-rummage/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- app-rummage-devel , rust-app-rummage+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described.
Tests are disabled!
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Please document the metadata patch.
[-]: 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.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132835372
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Tests are disabled!
[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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-app-rummage-devel-0.2.8-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-app-rummage+default-devel-0.2.8-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-app-rummage-0.2.8-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpz5qdl5x1')] checks: 32, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/app-rummage/0.2.8/download#/app-rummage-0.2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7cf4a36e3d8472069f903731cc01939194d125930cdeb0f49326bf3f57e4424 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7cf4a36e3d8472069f903731cc01939194d125930cdeb0f49326bf3f57e4424
Requires -------- rust-app-rummage-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(nix/default) >= 0.29.0 with crate(nix/default) < 0.31.0~) (crate(nix/user) >= 0.29.0 with crate(nix/user) < 0.31.0~) cargo
rust-app-rummage+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(app-rummage)
Provides -------- rust-app-rummage-devel: crate(app-rummage) rust-app-rummage-devel
rust-app-rummage+default-devel: crate(app-rummage/default) rust-app-rummage+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2364306 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Perl, Python, R, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
--- Comment #3 from solomoncyj@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag... SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag...
patch tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2090179 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2090179&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8999906 to 9057375
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9057375 (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=2364306
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- It looks like the Cargo.toml metadata patch to allow gix 0.29 is missing from the latest submission.
DEBUG util.py:459: Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(nix/default)
= 0.30.0 with crate(nix/default) < 0.31.0~)
DEBUG util.py:459: Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(nix/user) >= 0.30.0 with crate(nix/user) < 0.31.0~)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
--- Comment #7 from solomoncyj@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag... SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-app-rummage/rust-app-rummag...
- Uncommitted changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package APPROVED.
===
Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically)
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
===
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
I note two manual changes (possibly represented in rust2rpm.toml):
+# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes +# * Allow nix 0.29 until we have 0.30 packaged +Patch: app-rummage-fix-metadata.diff
This is a reasonable patch, appropriate to be downstream-only, and well-documented.
+# * patch tests to not fail +Patch1: https://gitlab.com/mission-center-devs/app-detection/-/commit/029ae0329235ad...
This is a reasonable patch, adequately documented, and with upstream status.
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/app- rummage-0.2.8/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
Not a serious problem; due to a reasonable rust2rpm design decision
===== 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2364306-rust-app- rummage/20250517/2364306-rust-app-rummage/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- app-rummage-devel , rust-app-rummage+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described.
Tests pass.
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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)
OK: solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-app-rummage-devel-0.2.8-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-app-rummage+default-devel-0.2.8-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-app-rummage-0.2.8-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp1oq5ubi_')] checks: 32, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/app-rummage/0.2.8/download#/app-rummage-0.2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7cf4a36e3d8472069f903731cc01939194d125930cdeb0f49326bf3f57e4424 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7cf4a36e3d8472069f903731cc01939194d125930cdeb0f49326bf3f57e4424
Requires -------- rust-app-rummage-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(nix/default) >= 0.29.0 with crate(nix/default) < 0.31.0~) (crate(nix/user) >= 0.29.0 with crate(nix/user) < 0.31.0~) cargo
rust-app-rummage+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(app-rummage)
Provides -------- rust-app-rummage-devel: crate(app-rummage) rust-app-rummage-devel
rust-app-rummage+default-devel: crate(app-rummage/default) rust-app-rummage+default-devel
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2364306-rust-app-rummage/20250517/2364306-rust-app-rummage/srpm/rust-app-rummage.spec 2025-05-17 07:52:53.041195113 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2364306-rust-app-rummage/20250517/2364306-rust-app-rummage/srpm-unpacked/rust-app-rummage.spec 2025-05-16 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -71,3 +81,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat May 17 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.2.8-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2364306 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2364306
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-app-rummage
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com