https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Bug ID: 1467132 Summary: Review Request: json-c12 - JSON implementation in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jeffrey.lau@ribose.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/rpm-specs/master/json-c12/json-c... SRPM URL: https://github.com/riboseinc/yum/blob/master/SRPMS/json-c12-0.12.1-2.src.rpm Description: JSON implementation in C Fedora Account System Username: jeffreylauribose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #1 from jeffrey.lau@ribose.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/rpm-specs/master/json-c12/json-c... SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/yum/master/SRPMS/json-c12-0.12.1... Description: JSON implementation in C Fedora Account System Username: jeffreylauribose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #2 from jeffrey.lau@ribose.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/rpm-specs/master/json-c12/json-c... SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/yum/master/SRPMS/json-c12-0.12.1...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
jeffrey.lau@ribose.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |besser82@fedoraproject.org Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |besser82@fedoraproject.org Flags| |fedora-review?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1467132-json-c12/licensecheck.txt
---> License is fine.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/json-c(json-c-devel)
---> This will clash with the original json-c package. See my comments at the end.
[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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
---> Files inside this package will conflict with the original json-c package. See my comments at the end.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 30720 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> Conflicting files. See my comments at the end.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in json-c12-devel , json-c12-doc , json-c12-debuginfo
---> All needed Requires are present.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
---> This can possibly be fixed by running `autoupdate -v` before invoking autoreconf.
[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). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: json-c12-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-devel-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-doc-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.noarch.rpm json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.src.rpm json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-2 ['0.12.1-2.el7.centos', '0.12.1-2.centos'] json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c.so.2.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation json-c12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-2 ['0.12.1-2.el7.centos', '0.12.1-2.centos'] json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c.so.2.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation json-c12-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- json-c12-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config json-c12(x86-64) libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
json-c12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
json-c12-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- json-c12-devel: json-c12-devel json-c12-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(json-c)
json-c12-doc: json-c12-doc
json-c12: json-c12 json-c12(x86-64) libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-debuginfo: json-c12-debuginfo json-c12-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-c/json-c/archive/json-c-0.12.1-20160607.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: json-c-json-c-0.12.1-20160607/configure.ac:71
---> This can possibly be fixed by running `autoupdate -v` before invoking autoreconf. If autoupdate doesn't work, it should be patched in configure.ac
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1467132 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
===== Solution =====
Not approved. Issues are present.
===== Comments and suggestions =====
To avoid conflicting files between this compat-package and the original package, you must patch the buildsystem (Makefile.am) to generate / build the files suffixed the same way as the package is (e.g. libjson-c12.so, libjson-c12.pc). If you need help doing so, let me know.
If this package should be build for EPEL6 as well, you must drop the 'f' from the switches used with hardlink.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- For replacing the obsolete macro in configure.ac have a look at this patch [1].
[1] https://github.com/json-c/json-c/pull/333.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- For properly renaming to avoid conflicts with the original json-c package have a look at this patch [1].
[1] https://github.com/besser82/json-c/commit/9b0b9f3c00078a0ec7a63eb8a252a24f69...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #6 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- To get those patches applied properly, you need to append `-p 1` to the %autosetup line in the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #7 from jeffrey.lau@ribose.com --- Thanks Björn. Here's another go at it:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/rpm-specs/master/json-c12/json-c... SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riboseinc/yum/master/SRPMS/json-c12-0.12.1...
We incorporated the patches into the spec file as 'sed' commands, which seemed to have removed the issues reported by fedora-review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Björn "besser82" Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1467132-json-c12/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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in json-c12-devel , json-c12-doc , json-c12-debuginfo
---> False positive. Dependencies are fine.
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: json-c12-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-devel-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-doc-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.noarch.rpm json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm json-c12-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.src.rpm json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-3 ['0.12.1-3.el7.centos', '0.12.1-3.centos'] json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c12.so.2.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation json-c12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-3 ['0.12.1-3.el7.centos', '0.12.1-3.centos'] json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c12.so.2.0.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation json-c12-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- json-c12-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config json-c12(x86-64) libjson-c12.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
json-c12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
json-c12-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- json-c12-devel: json-c12-devel json-c12-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(json-c12)
json-c12-doc: json-c12-doc
json-c12: json-c12 json-c12(x86-64) libjson-c12.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-debuginfo: json-c12-debuginfo json-c12-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-c/json-c/archive/json-c-0.12.1-20160607.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL6=1 -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1467132 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH
===== Solution =====
Package APPROVED!!! I'd recommend to reset the Release-tag to 1 during import and clear the changelog to just have one entry:
* Mon May 8 2017 Jeffrey Lau jeffrey.lau@ribose.com - 0.12.1-1 - Initial compat-package for EPEL >= 6, based on json-c from recent Fedora
Since this is a compat-pkg for EPEL only, you must retire the master branch in dist-git immediately. It is pretty easy to do: `fedpkg retire 'Compat-pkg for EPEL, only.'`. After that you can import the package on the epel7 branch, build it and merge it down to el6 and build it there again.
If you have further questions about how to proceed from now on, you we can discuss this by email.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/json-c12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-99ae3cbbfb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-99ae3cbbfb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0124a2f1c4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-07-23 14:49:45
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com