https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Bug ID: 2065938 Summary: Review Request: chibi-scheme - Minimal Scheme Implementation for use as an Extension Language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jani@sinervo.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme-0.10.0-1.fc36.s... Description: Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension and scripting language in C programs. In addition to support for lightweight VM-based threads, each VM itself runs in an isolated heap allowing multiple VMs to run simultaneously in different OS threads. Fedora Account System Username: sham1
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84425704
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Jani, thank you for the package.
I am trying to build it in Mock/Copr and it fails. Can you please try?
License: BSD
I am not sure if it is required yet, but Fedora is moving toward SPDX license names. For BSD, it would be BSD-3-Clause https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
%description ... %description devel ...
There is a trick how to avoid copy-pasting the description text. You can define a variable like this
%global _description %{expand: Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension ...and the rest of the text}
And then you can define your description like this
%description %_description
And your devel description like this
%description -n %{pypi_name} %_description
This package contains the development files alongside the tool `chibi-ffi`.
%set_build_flags
This is AFAIK called automatically, and I think this line can be removed
%{_mandir}/man1/*
Can you please be more specific here? You can still use * instead of the file type, but the manpage name should be explicit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---
Name: chibi-scheme Version: 0.10.0 Release: 1%{?dist}
This is up to your preference but I would suggest not aligning text into columns like these using TABs. It breaks when another person is using a different TAB width than you. For example, you can try
vim python-pyvips.spec :set tabstop=12
or just experimenting with various TAB widths in your favorite editor. When using spaces, the columns are always aligned the same.
(This is a different topic from TABs vs spaces for indentation, i.e. whitespace on the beginning of the line. I wouldn't have any suggestions there because I don't want to start a holy war :D)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #3 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi --- Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme-0.10.0-1.fc37.s...
Was a bit distracted (once again...) but I went though your suggestions and fixed the build failure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you for the changes Jani,
Summary: Development files for chibi-scheme Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I see you switched to spaces. Good :-) You forgot two TABs here ^^
%post # Always generate images when installing (upgrade or not) %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -mchibi.repl -d %{_datadir}/chibi/chibi.img %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -xscheme.red -mchibi.repl -d %{_datadir}/chibi/red.img %{_bindir}/chibi-scheme -mchibi.snow.commands -mchibi.snow.interface -mchibi.snow.package -mchibi.snow.utils -d %{_datadir}/chibi/snow.img
We typically try to avoid using scriptlets as much as possible. I am not familiar with the chibi-scheme project, so I want to ask you - Do we really need to run these commands on the user machine? Would it be possible to prepare these .img files at the end of the %build section and then move them where they should be in the %install section?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #5 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi --- Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/chibi-scheme/chibi-scheme-0.10.0-1.fc37.s...
Fixed the final tabs. Now everything should finally be consistent :)
As for the scriptlets, I explained in the %install section why they're needed, but I've now added additional comments at %post to explain their necessity. The gist is that it cannot be done at %build since the paths within the image files would point to absolute paths within the buildroot, which is not something we want. And just going ahead and manually changing them would probably not be a good thing either, since these images are basically just RAM dumps of the execution, and thus changing them would be rather delicate.
FWIW Debian for example also does this kind of post-install script thing for the same reason with their chibi-scheme package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---
As for the scriptlets
I see, thank you very much for the explanation and for the additional comments in the spec file.
I already wanted to give +1 but the fedora-review tool revealed a couple more things.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Unversioned so-files
chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/ast.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/crypto/crypto.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/disasm.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/emscripten.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/filesystem.so ...
Do you understand what is wrong here? My understanding is that those should be provided by the chibi-scheme-devel package or there should be a number suffix in those names, e.g. ast.so.0
But I must admit that it is outside of my scope so I mainly just hope that you know what is going on here :-)
MIT License
chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/101.scm chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135.scm chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135.sld chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/kernel8.body.scm chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/kernel8.sld chibi-scheme-0.10.0/lib/srfi/135/test.sld
From https://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/#h2_SnowPackageManager
Beyond the distributed modules, Chibi comes with a package manager based on Snow2 ...
Should the lib be bundled or installed as a separate package? If bundled, I guess we will have to mention MIT in the License field
License: BSD-3-Clause AND MIT
[!]: 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)
I guess you forgot to rebuild your SRPM package after updating the spec file?
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm/chibi-scheme.spec 2022-11-11 19:25:34.442506969 +0100 +++ /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm-unpacked/chibi-scheme.spec 2022-11-11 18:32:05.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%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 + %global _description %{expand: Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension @@ -89,3 +98,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 11 2022 John Doe packager@example.com 0.10.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #7 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi ---
Do you understand what is wrong here? My understanding is that those should be provided by the chibi-scheme-devel package or there should be a number suffix in those names, e.g. ast.so.0
But I must admit that it is outside of my scope so I mainly just hope that you know what is going on here :-)
This would usually be the case, but in this particular instance this is fine. This is due to the fact that, as fedora-review here says, they're in a private subdir under %_libdir, and they will not be in ld path.
These unversioned files are needed, as they provide the C implementations for various necessary things, like for example the `(chibi ast)` and `(chibi crypto sha2)` modules, and these are needed at runtime even without having the -devel package installed.
If bundled, I guess we will have to mention MIT in the License field
Done. These SRFI implementations are a part of the project proper, they were just imported from elsewhere and thus they have differing license terms. But nevertheless they're still necessary.
I guess you forgot to rebuild your SRPM package after updating the spec file?
In this case it's just fedora-review not properly understanding how %autorelease and %autochangelog work. Basically when those macros are expanded, %autorelease computes the next available release number for a given version, while %autochangelog generates %changelog entries from distgit commit messages.
This is harmless and expected behaviour.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you very much,
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "MIT License". 698 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi- scheme/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 368640 bytes in 39 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: 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) [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3399680 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).
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
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) ============================ 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: 4
chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snow-chibi chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snow-chibi.scm chibi-scheme.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/system.so chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.chibi.meta chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.scheme.meta chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/chibi/.srfi.meta chibi-scheme.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 4.9 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/ast.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/crypto/crypto.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/disasm.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/emscripten.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/filesystem.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/heap-stats.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/io/io.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/json.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/net.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/optimize/profile.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/optimize/rest.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/process.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/pty.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/stty.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/system.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/threads.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/time.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/chibi/weak.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/scheme/bytevector.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/scheme/time.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/144/math.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/151/bit.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/160/uvprims.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/18/threads.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/27/rand.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/39/param.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/69/hash.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/95/qsort.so chibi-scheme: /usr/lib64/chibi/srfi/98/env.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://synthcode.com/scheme/chibi/chibi-scheme-0.10.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8db67f420c86b07ad47ce42b65ae2948a80e607fb658595cbe3381ef537c40cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8db67f420c86b07ad47ce42b65ae2948a80e607fb658595cbe3381ef537c40cf
Requires -------- chibi-scheme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/chibi-scheme /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libchibi-scheme.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
chibi-scheme-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/chibi-scheme /usr/bin/pkg-config chibi-scheme(x86-64) libchibi-scheme.so.0()(64bit)
chibi-scheme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
chibi-scheme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- chibi-scheme: chibi-scheme chibi-scheme(x86-64) libchibi-scheme.so.0()(64bit)
chibi-scheme-devel: chibi-scheme-devel chibi-scheme-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(chibi-scheme)
chibi-scheme-debuginfo: chibi-scheme-debuginfo chibi-scheme-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libchibi-scheme.so.0.10.0-0.10.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
chibi-scheme-debugsource: chibi-scheme-debugsource chibi-scheme-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm/chibi-scheme.spec 2022-11-12 11:20:59.994460100 +0100 +++ /home/jkadlcik/2065938-chibi-scheme/srpm-unpacked/chibi-scheme.spec 2022-11-11 21:38:25.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%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 + %global _description %{expand: Chibi-Scheme is a very small library intended for use as an extension @@ -91,3 +100,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 11 2022 John Doe packager@example.com 0.10.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2065938 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- One last thing to consider, but not I won't block the review because of it. There is a tests directory in the upstream repo https://github.com/ashinn/chibi-scheme/tree/master/tests
Maybe we can add a %check section and run them?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #10 from Jani Juhani Sinervo jani@sinervo.fi ---
One last thing to consider, but not I won't block the review because of it. There is a tests directory in the upstream repo https://github.com/ashinn/chibi-scheme/tree/master/tests
Maybe we can add a %check section and run them?
I'll look into it. Anyway, thanks for the review! :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chibi-scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-14 17:04:34
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-8cd3e4d44c 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=2065938
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-82bb959135
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065938
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 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-2022-82bb959135 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-82bb959135
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=2065938
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-82bb959135 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org