https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Bug ID: 2352694 Summary: Review Request: digdoc - a DNS-over-CoAP client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc-0%5E20250218git63f82c4-1.fc43.src.rpm
description: digdoc is a lightweight command-line tool written in C that acts as a DNS-over-CoAP (DoC) client. Since most common DNS servers do not natively support CoAP, digdoc currently uses the aiodns-proxy project to translate CoAP packets into standard UDP-based DNS queries.
fas: fed500
Comment: This package requires libcoap > 4.3.5 which will have new functionality coap_send_receive
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/dig-doc/ | |digdoc
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8770362 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- A version that uses current release of libcoap
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2080389 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2080389&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8770362 to 8771386
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8771386 (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=2352694
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- This looks good overall, and it seems to comply with all the MUST guidelines, but there are a few SHOULD-type issues I’d like to bring up before approving it.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- While install.patch looks reasonable, the spec file lacks an upstream status link for it. Please link https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/issues/2 and/or https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/pull/3 in a spec-file comment.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_shou...
(Optionally, you could base the patch source on the PR URL, something like "Patch: https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/pull/3.patch".)
- It looks like all of the tests require network access. Please add a comment in %check, or where %check would be, explaining this. Doing so will keep future readers from wondering, and perhaps spending time investigating, whether you simply forgot about the tests.
- Man pages are always desired for command-line tools, although they are not strictly required.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
In this case, you can use help2man to generate a man page that, while not quite as nice as if it were hand-written, is perfectly adequate.
Add:
BuildRequires: help2man
Then, at the end of %build:
help2man \ --no-info \ --version-string='%{version}' \ --name='%{summary}' \ --output=%{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc.1 \ %{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc
At the end of %install:
install -p -D -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' %{_vpath_builddir}/digdoc.1
In %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/digdoc.1*
===== 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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: 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 1698 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described.
I do not know how to test this.
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130344999
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
It turns out that all tests require network access, but you should add a spec-file comment explaining this.
(I tried running the tests via test.sh in a chroot with network access enabled, but they all timed out. This probably just means I don’t have the correct environment, rather than indicating an issue with digdoc.)
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL)
OK: differences are due to expansion of rpmautospec macros
[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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9msjtp0x')] checks: 32, packages: 2
digdoc.src: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digdoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: digdoc-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpev_nnvpw')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2
digdoc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('aiodns', '%description -l en_US aiodns -> ordains') digdoc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digdoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/archive/v0.0.1/digdoc-0.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58a94ebd8bbd8876598d2895a8f60546e94da34f3bbbbf3342e92a216a33ee03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58a94ebd8bbd8876598d2895a8f60546e94da34f3bbbbf3342e92a216a33ee03
Requires -------- digdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcoap-3-openssl.so.3()(64bit) libcoap-3-openssl.so.3(VER_3)(64bit) libldns.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- digdoc: digdoc digdoc(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/srpm/digdoc.spec 2025-03-16 07:27:48.836724595 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2352694-digdoc/srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec 2025-03-15 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: digdoc Version: 0.0.1 @@ -43,3 +53,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Mar 16 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.0.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352694 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Updated. Tests would still need some work.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc-0.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2080513 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2080513&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8771386 to 8772761
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772761 (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=2352694
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I see that you added an appropriate upstream status comment for install.patch. Thanks.
I see that you documented why the tests aren't run. Thanks.
Using sphinx to generate a man page was a good idea, but the resulting man page doesn't appear to usefully document the command-line interface. It appears to document the internal implementation of the command-line tool instead:
DIGDOCCOMMAND-LINETOOL(1) digdoc command-line tool DIGDOCCOMMAND-LINETOOL(1)
NAME digdoccommand-linetool - digdoc command-line tool 0.1
Defines
DNS_PACKET_SIZE
DIGDOC_CF_DNS
Functions
void print_output(ldns_pkt *pkt, size_t dns_length, int query_time) print response
This function prints the DNS response separated in sections.
Parameters
• pkt -- [in] contains the raw DNS packet
• dns_length -- [in] is the size of the DNS packet
• query_time -- [in] is the time between sending a DoC packet and receiving a response in microseconds
coap_response_t handle_response(coap_session_t *session, const coap_pdu_t *sent_pdu, const coap_pdu_t *received_pdu, const coap_mid_t message_id) handle response
This function is automatically called when a DoC packet was received.
NOTE: session, sent_pdu and message_id are not used but need to be included in the coap_response_handler_t of libcoap
Parameters received_pdu -- [in] encapsulates the received message
Returns COAP_RESPONSE_OK if the response is fine
[...]
I don't think we should ship that. Unless Sphinx can be asked to document the actual command-line interface instead, the options would appear to be:
- Use help2man - Write a man page by hand - Don’t ship a man page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Updated with upstream release. Have used help2man
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/digdoc-0.0.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Here is the diff from the original submission:
$ diff -Naur ../srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec 2352694-digdoc/srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec --- ../srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec 2025-03-15 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 +++ 2352694-digdoc/srpm-unpacked/digdoc.spec 2025-04-08 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,28 +1,18 @@ -## START: Set by rpmautospec -## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) -## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog -%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: - release_number = 1; - base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); - print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); -}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} -## END: Set by rpmautospec - Name: digdoc -Version: 0.0.1 +Version: 0.0.2 Release: %autorelease Summary: A DNS-over-CoAP client
License: MIT URL: https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/digdoc-%{version}.tar.gz -Patch: install.patch
BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libcoap-devel BuildRequires: ldns-devel - +# Documentation dependencies +BuildRequires: help2man
%description digdoc is a lightweight command-line tool written in C that acts as a @@ -37,22 +27,23 @@ %build %cmake %cmake_build - +# Build documentation +help2man --version-string='%{version}' --no-discard-stderr --no-info --name=digdoc --output=digdoc.1 %{_builddir}/digdoc-%{version}/%{__cmake_builddir}/digdoc
%install %cmake_install +mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1 +install digdoc.1 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/digdoc.1
%check - +# Tests need internet access +# https://github.com/dig-doc/digdoc/issues/4
%files %license LICENSE %doc README.md %{_bindir}/digdoc - +%{_mandir}/man1/digdoc.1*
%changelog -## START: Generated by rpmautospec -* Sun Mar 16 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.0.1-1 -- Uncommitted changes -## END: Generated by rpmautospec +%autochangelog
All feedback from the original review was handled; otherwise, the review template still applies.
The generated man page has useful and usable content. The heading is a little weird:
NAME digdoc - digdoc
This would be improved by changing --name=digdoc to --name='%{summary}` in the help2man invocation.
The patch was upstreamed. Nothing else in the new upstream release appears to require packaging changes.
Release 0.0.2 does support for testing with a local server. However, running these downstream would at least require packaging https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/aiodnsprox/ and adapting testing/test.sh not to install it into a virtualenv. It then still might not work, because "local" tests that require a working DNS configuration still don’t work in mock. Therefore, this is a possibility for future investigation, but it doesn’t need to block the review.
The package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- 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/digdoc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c (digdoc-0.0.2-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7b1d6a5081 (digdoc-0.0.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7b1d6a5081
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the review.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/377649/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c
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=2352694
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7b1d6a5081 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-2025-7b1d6a5081 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7b1d6a5081
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=2352694
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-04-20 00:26:32
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7b1d6a5081 (digdoc-0.0.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352694
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-60a626a06c (digdoc-0.0.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com