[Bug 2233084] New: Review Request: python-click-option-group - Option groups missing in Click
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Bug ID: 2233084 Summary: Review Request: python-click-option-group - Option groups missing in Click Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@lecris.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/python-click-option-group/blob/copr/python-click... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/python-click-optio... Description: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click. Fedora Account System Username:lecris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/click-co | |ntrib/click-option-group
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6324606 (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=2233084
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/python-click-option-group/blob/copr/python-click... SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/tmp/tmpy5oy_l8f/python-click-option-group-... Description: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click. Fedora Account System Username:lecris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/python-click-option-group/blob/copr/python-click... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/python-click-optio... Description: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click. Fedora Account System Username:lecris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/python-click-option-group/blob/copr/python-click... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/python-click-optio...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #3 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://github.com/LecrisUT/python-click-option-group/blob/copr/python-click... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/python-click-optio...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6325405 (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=2233084
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1984330 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1984330&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6325405 to 6325687
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6325687 (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=2233084
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Ok, it would be nice to build the docs. For that you need the Github archive.
For that you need build python-m2r2 :
%global pypi_name m2r2
Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: 0.3.3.post2 Release: %autorelease Summary: Markdown to reStructuredText converter
License: MIT URL: https://github.com/crossnox/m2r2 Source: %URL/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx)
%global _description %{expand: M2R2 converts a markdown file including reStructuredText (rst) markups to a valid rst format.}
%description %_description
%package -n python3-%{pypi_name} Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-%{pypi_name} %_description
%package -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc Summary: Documentation for python-%{pypi_name} BuildArch: noarch
%description -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc %{common_description}
This package is providing the documentation for %{pypi_name}.
%prep %autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version} sed -i 's|__version__ = get_distribution("m2r2").version|__version__ = "%{version}"|' m2r2.py
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -t
%build %pyproject_wheel
%install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files m2r2
# generate html docs export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/ sphinx-build-3 -b html docs/ html # remove the sphinx-build-3 leftovers rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
%check %pytest
%files -n python3-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc CHANGES.md README.md %{_bindir}/m2r2
%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc %doc html %license LICENSE
%changelog %autochangelog ========================================================
%global pypi_name click-option-group %global pypi_name_with_underscore %(echo "%{pypi_name}" | sed "s/-/_/g")
Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: 0.5.6 Release: %autorelease Summary: Option groups missing in Click
License: BSD-3-Clause URL: https://github.com/click-contrib/click-option-group Source: %URL/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(m2r2) BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx) BuildRequires: python3dist(pallets-sphinx-themes)
%global _description %{expand: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click.}
%description %_description
%package -n python3-click-option-group Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-click-option-group %_description
%package -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc Summary: Documentation for python-%{pypi_name} BuildArch: noarch
%description -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc %_description
This package is providing the documentation for %{pypi_name}.
%prep %autosetup -n click-option-group-%{version}
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -x tests
%build %pyproject_wheel
%install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files click_option_group
# generate html docs export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/ sphinx-build-3 -b html docs/ html # remove the sphinx-build-3 leftovers rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
%check %pytest
%files -n python3-click-option-group -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc README.md
%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc %doc html %license LICENSE
%changelog %autochangelog
========================================================
- description must be split after 80 column:
%global _description %{expand: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click. }
->
%global _description %{expand: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click.}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fedora@lecris.me)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@lecris.me) |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #8 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Thanks for the review. There are a few conflicting opinions I got from previous reviews.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7)
- Ok, it would be nice to build the docs. For that you need the Github
archive.
Could that be postponed to a later release? I have just switched it to `hatchling` [1] which should include the docs in the sdist, and if `m2r2` is just used to convert markdown to `rst`, I think it would be better to modernize it to use myst instead.
%global pypi_name click-option-group %global pypi_name_with_underscore %(echo "%{pypi_name}" | sed "s/-/_/g")
In a previous review on `scikit-build(-core)`, I was recommended to move away from macros like `%ppi_name` in order to make the spec file more readable.
%global _description %{expand: click-option-group is a Click-extension package that adds option groups missing in Click.}
I guess I line-breaked too late on this one? I did try to keep it within 80 characters and I thought the rpminspect is checking for that in the review.
# generate html docs export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/ sphinx-build-3 -b html docs/ html # remove the sphinx-build-3 leftovers rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
Only generate and package html docs right? Btw, what about if the documentation has `inter-sphinx`, will it be able to link to the local documentation of the other documentation package?
%files -n python3-click-option-group -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE
Not relevant yet, but the `%license` will be automatically constructed from the metadata provided by hatchling [2]. So in the case of:
%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc %license LICENSE
That would then have to be provided manually for this sub-package. Could the license be centralized in the main package instead?
[1] https://github.com/click-contrib/click-option-group/blob/8118a76fd0321ac32a2... [2] https://github.com/packit/packit/pull/1913#discussion_r1163956946
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #8)
Only generate and package html docs right? Btw, what about if the documentation has `inter-sphinx`, will it be able to link to the local documentation of the other documentation package?
It isn't automatic. Several python packages I maintain have something like this in %prep:
# Use local objects.inv for intersphinx sed -e "s|('https://docs%5C.python%5C.org/3/': )None|\1'%{_docdir}/python3-docs/html/objects.inv'|" \ -e "s|('https://persistent%5C.readthedocs%5C.io/en/latest/': )None|\1'%{_docdir}/python3-persistent-doc/objects.inv'|" \ -e 's|("https://zopeinterface%5C.readthedocs%5C.io/en/latest/": )None|\1"%{_docdir}/python-zope-interface/html/objects.inv"|' \ -i docs/conf.py
You have to add the relevant documentation packages to BuildRequires, of course.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #10 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- @loganjerry@gmail.com Thanks for the tip. I would probably add a patch and use `%pyproject_buildrequires -x` to simplify things
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com |fedora-review+ |) | Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com ---
Could that be postponed to a later release? I have just switched it to `hatchling` [1] which should include the docs in the sdist, and if `m2r2` is just used to convert markdown to `rst`, I think it would be better to modernize it to use myst instead.
OK
In a previous review on `scikit-build(-core)`, I was recommended to move away from macros like `%ppi_name` in order to make the spec file more readable.
I have a different view on that, but you do as you wish. I use the SPEC like a template where I can replace the variable by another for a new package.
I guess I line-breaked too late on this one? I did try to keep it within 80 characters and I thought the rpminspect is checking for that in the review.
Yeah but don't put a newline before the closing }
Only generate and package html docs right? Btw, what about if the documentation has `inter-sphinx`, will it be able to link to the local documentation of the other documentation package?
Not automatically. Never seen it done though.
Could the license be centralized in the main package instead?
If you put a Require on the main package yes.
Package approved.
Please: - add commit rights to python-packagers-sig after requesting the repo - add the package to Koschei in the python-packagers-sig group on all branches you are building - add the package to release-monitoring.org even if it does not release version
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-click-option-group/review-python- click-option-group/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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 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 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 4065 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== 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 python3-click-option-group [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-click-option-group-0.5.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-click-option-group-doc-0.5.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-click-option-group-0.5.6-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpz2mqhokm')] checks: 31, packages: 3
=============================================================================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===============================================================================================================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-click-option-group
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9d44eee6fb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9d44eee6fb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bdcebdb39a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-bdcebdb39a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bdcebdb39a
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=2233084
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64
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=2233084
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9d44eee6fb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9d44eee6fb
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=2233084
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-72e30570cd has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-72e30570cd` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-72e30570cd
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=2233084
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-09-15 01:35:03
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1a7f8b5e64 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-72e30570cd 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=2233084
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9d44eee6fb has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233084
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bdcebdb39a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com