[Bug 2332843] New: Review Request: sciplot0.2 - Modern C++ scientific plotting library (0.2 compatibility package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
Bug ID: 2332843 Summary: Review Request: sciplot0.2 - Modern C++ scientific plotting library (0.2 compatibility package) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: The goal of the sciplot project is to enable a C++ programmer to conveniently plot beautiful graphs as easy as in other high-level programming languages. sciplot is a header-only library that needs a C++17-capable compiler, but has no external dependencies for compiling. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://sciplot.github.io/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8403511 (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=2332843
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jonathansteffan@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/sciplot0.2/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sciplot(sciplot- devel), /usr/include/sciplot/specs(sciplot-devel), /usr/share/sciplot(sciplot-devel) [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: 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. [!]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2532 bytes in 1 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [!]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sciplot0.2-devel-0.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpc23r452x')] checks: 32, packages: 2
========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/archive/v0.2.2/sciplot-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b028e210965ce0a5678eec248a38e4a742ecff5407b2a6298e00da84e669b20c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b028e210965ce0a5678eec248a38e4a742ecff5407b2a6298e00da84e669b20c
Requires -------- sciplot0.2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- sciplot0.2-devel: sciplot0.2-devel sciplot0.2-devel(x86-64) sciplot0.2-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- [!]: 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", "Boost Software License 1.0". 61 files have unknown license.
Boost Software License 1.0 sciplot-0.2.2/tests/catch.hpp
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sciplot(sciplot- devel), /usr/include/sciplot/specs(sciplot-devel), /usr/share/sciplot(sciplot-devel) [!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
I'm not certain how to deal with this because it's a compat package. I think "Conflicts: sciplot-devel" but we should double check.
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
These look good after research.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
sciplot0.2-devel sciplot0.2-devel(x86-64) sciplot0.2-static
Based on my interpretation of the guidelines for multiple packages with the same base name, this should be correct. Just want to double check.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
Intentional. The latest v2 version is packaged.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
We should run the tests as part of the build process.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- # Fix permissions chmod -x LICENSE README.md
We should file an issue upstream if this is still present in the latest version. If it's only an issue with the 2.2 tag we can keep this downstream only.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3)
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sciplot(sciplot- devel), /usr/include/sciplot/specs(sciplot-devel), /usr/share/sciplot(sciplot-devel) [!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
I'm not certain how to deal with this because it's a compat package. I think "Conflicts: sciplot-devel" but we should double check.
Yes, I've added the conflict for this reason. We should not have any package requiring both sciplot-devel and sciplot0.2-devel.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3)
[!]: 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", "Boost Software License 1.0". 61 files have unknown license.
Boost Software License 1.0 sciplot-0.2.2/tests/catch.hpp
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
We should run the tests as part of the build process.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
- Enable tests (requires backported patch) - Change licensing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2063734 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2063734&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8403511 to 8443635
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8443635 (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=2332843
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 61 files have unknown license. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sciplot(sciplot- devel), /usr/include/sciplot/specs(sciplot-devel), /usr/share/sciplot(sciplot-devel) [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2532 bytes in 1 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sciplot0.2-devel-0.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp1rol97wx')] checks: 32, packages: 2
========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/archive/v0.2.2/sciplot-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b028e210965ce0a5678eec248a38e4a742ecff5407b2a6298e00da84e669b20c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b028e210965ce0a5678eec248a38e4a742ecff5407b2a6298e00da84e669b20c
Requires -------- sciplot0.2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- sciplot0.2-devel: sciplot0.2-devel sciplot0.2-devel(x86-64) sciplot0.2-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com ---
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sciplot(sciplot- devel), /usr/include/sciplot/specs(sciplot-devel), /usr/share/sciplot(sciplot-devel)
Noting this is fine because this is a compat package and Conflicts the main package.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
sciplot0.2-devel: sciplot0.2-devel sciplot0.2-devel(x86-64) sciplot0.2-static
We're not actually shipping a static library. I don't think we're supposed to have a -static virtual provides in that case.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
Noting this is an old version and a compat package.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Add links to the upstream location for:
# Enable testing with CMake and ctest Patch0: %{forgeurl}/pull/115.patch Patch1: %{forgeurl}/commit/a7dd232928dbb4205f281112c43019ef32dfbbd6.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #10)
We're not actually shipping a static library. I don't think we're supposed to have a -static virtual provides in that case.
Right, sorry forgot to remove the lines.
Add links to the upstream location for:
# Enable testing with CMake and ctest Patch0: %{forgeurl}/pull/115.patch Patch1: %{forgeurl}/commit/a7dd232928dbb4205f281112c43019ef32dfbbd6.patch
Those are actually the links to download the patches, that's why those names/urls. If you remove them and do `spectool -g sciplot0.2.spec` they get downloaded.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
- Removed the virtual provides of -static.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8444412 (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=2332843
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- After adding links to https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/pull/115 and https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/commit/a7dd232928dbb4205f281112c43019ef32... this looks good.
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Links added, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sciplot0.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 (sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Added xr-sig as admins for the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47
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=2332843
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217
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=2332843
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-05 01:28:14
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-2.fc40, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332843
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-2.fc41, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com