[Bug 2156234] New: Review Request: taskflow - Header library for writing parallel and heterogeneous with C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Bug ID: 2156234 Summary: Review Request: taskflow - Header library for writing parallel and heterogeneous with C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: troy@troycurtisjr.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow.spec SRPM URL: https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow-3.4.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Taskflow is a C++ header library which helps you quickly write parallel and heterogeneous task programs with high performance and simultaneous high productivity. It is faster, more expressive, fewer lines of code, and easier for drop-in integration than many of existing task programming libraries.
Fedora Account System Username: troycurtisjr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #1 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95644373
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1036607
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036607 [Bug 1036607] python-Levenshtein-0.20.9 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2156257
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156257 [Bug 2156257] Review Request: python-rapidfuzz - A fast string matching library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1036607 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036607 [Bug 1036607] python-Levenshtein-0.20.9 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Apache License 1.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License (modified-code-notice clause) GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Boehm GC License Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "bzip2 and libbzip2 License v1.0.6 Apache License 2.0", "zlib License Apache License 2.0", "zlib License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 2178 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/2156234-taskflow/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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) [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: taskflow-devel-3.4.0-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm taskflow-3.4.0-1.fc38.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/tmpsr_f7wvr')] checks: 31, packages: 2
taskflow.src: W: strange-permission taskflow.spec 600 taskflow-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 1
taskflow-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/archive/v3.4.0/taskflow-3.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8f449137d3f642b43e905aeacdf1d7c5365037d5e1586103ed4f459f87cecf89 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8f449137d3f642b43e905aeacdf1d7c5365037d5e1586103ed4f459f87cecf89
Requires -------- taskflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64)
Provides -------- taskflow-devel: bundled(cli11-devel) bundled(cpp-httplib-devel) bundled(doctest) bundled(eigen3-devel) bundled(json-devel) bundled(spdlog) bundled(tbb) cmake(Taskflow) cmake(taskflow) taskflow-devel taskflow-devel(aarch-64) taskflow-static
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2156234-taskflow/srpm/taskflow.spec 2022-12-27 06:47:13.171799394 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2156234-taskflow/srpm-unpacked/taskflow.spec 2022-12-25 16:44:22.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## 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 + # Header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -64,3 +74,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Dec 25 2022 Troy Curtis Jr troy@troycurtisjr.com - 3.4.0-1 +- Initial spec file.
Comments: a) If the bundled packages are only used for tests and examples, should they be listed as being provided? Could any of these which are packaged in Fedora be used instead? b) Some Fedora packages do have Cuda support. Probably also Sycl support can be added. Though this does not need to be done at present. c) License warnings seem to come from bundled libraries d) There are html docs which are not packaged, probably due to embedded javascript. Can doxygen be used to provide manpages? e) Can the examples be packaged as documentation?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #3 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
Comments: a) If the bundled packages are only used for tests and examples, should they be listed as being provided? Could any of these which are packaged in Fedora be used instead?
Yes, it did seem a bit odd to me initially as well, but this was the direction we came to on #fedora-devel. The idea being that is properly documents the where such libraries are "used" even if they aren't actually provided in the binary RPMs.
b) Some Fedora packages do have Cuda support. Probably also Sycl support can be added. Though this does not need to be done at present.
I believe both of these are supported in the current install, under /usr/include/taskflow/{cuda/sycl}.
c) License warnings seem to come from bundled libraries
Yep
d) There are html docs which are not packaged, probably due to embedded javascript. Can doxygen be used to provide manpages?
If I'm honest I didn't package it because it didn't get installed by default! You are right the pregenerated html might not be the right thing to include, but I'll give it a try building using Fedora's doxygen. Manpages for a complex C++ header library seem like they might not be that effective.
e) Can the examples be packaged as documentation?
Yeah I think so, looking at them they appear to really only use the library itself with small examples.
I'll see about getting some docs generated and I'll post an updated spec/srpm. If I do manage to get the html docs generated fresh, I'll break out into a doc sub-package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Perhaps try use what is in Fedora for tests as this would better represent use of these header files:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/cli11/cli11-devel https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/cpp-httplib/cpp-httplib-devel https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/eigen3/eigen3-devel https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/doctest/doctest-devel/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/json/json-devel https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/spdlog/spdlog https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/tbb/tbb
The versions may not exactly match, but usually this is not problematic. It seems that the 3rd party software has not been significantly modified, this can cause problems when trying to use packaged software.
The bundled software is not installed, so should not be listed in provides. Adding a comment about in the spec file should be sufficient as testing software with licenses different from installed software seems to be ok to use in build and testing.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Bundled_Software_policy/
Perhaps upstream might be responsive to creating manpages? https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/starting.html#man_out
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #5 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- I'm glad you pushed on the bundled libraries a bit. It turns out that all but doctest are only used in sandbox/, which appears to be a dumping ground of random code snippets of interest to upstream. Using the system doctest was a trivial change, and all the bundles could go away. I've removed them during the prep step.
Additionally, looking more closely at the docs was a good exercise as well. I've put the html and examples into a doc subpackage, which could be useful, but I also looked more closely at the licenses of various PDFs of published papers included in the references section. They range from ambiguous to certainly not OK for Fedora to redistribute (and they may or may not actually be OK for the author to redistribute depending on what documentation they have. I opened an issue upstream to have them clarify the terms https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/issues/451). Looking at the terms of a few of the IEEE copyright listings, we likely can't even post the source tarball without explicit permission, thus I followed the process described https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-up... to create a script to generate a tarball without the prohibited content.
Updated spec and srpm:
https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow.spec https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow-3.4.0-3.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #6 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- New scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95684778
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Output of Fedora-Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/taskflow/fedora-ra...
a) Can you add Release: 1%{?dist} to the spec file? b) Might it be possible to use softlinks for some of the duplicated files in the documentation?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #8 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7)
Thanks. Output of Fedora-Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/taskflow/fedora- rawhide-x86_64/05192764-taskflow/fedora-review/review.txt
a) Can you add Release: 1%{?dist}
This spec file is using the rpmautospec[1] macros, %autorelease & %autochangelog. The release and dist tag are automatically created during the build. These are actually present in their expanded form in the srpm. This can be verified by inspecting the srpm directly:
❯ rpm -q --info ./taskflow-3.4.0-4.fc38.src.rpm Name : taskflow Version : 3.4.0 Release : 4.fc38 <-- Note the release and dist. 4 since this is now my fourth iteration in this review. I plan to squash down to the single first commit on import.
❯ rpm -q --changelog ./taskflow-3.4.0-4.fc38.src.rpm * Sat Dec 31 2022 Troy Curtis Jr troy@troycurtisjr.com - 3.4.0-4 - Remove intermediate xml files from the docs.
* Fri Dec 30 2022 Troy Curtis Jr troy@troycurtisjr.com - 3.4.0-3 - Add a doc subpackage and remove ref PDFs due to licensing.
* Fri Dec 30 2022 Troy Curtis Jr troy@troycurtisjr.com - 3.4.0-2 - Remove bundled 3rd party libraries.
* Sun Dec 25 2022 Troy Curtis Jr troy@troycurtisjr.com - 3.4.0-1 - Initial spec file.
It is one of the known limitations of the fedora-review tool that it doesn't "know" about those quite yet, but luckily it replaces a manual process with an automated one, so the presence of %autorelease indicates that it will Do The Right Thing during the build.
to the spec file? b) Might it be possible to use softlinks for some of the duplicated files in the documentation?
I did one better, I removed them, along with everything under xml/. When looking as to why they are duplicated, I realized that the files in the xml/ directory are actually just intermediate files on the way to generate the html docs. Thus the xml directory doesn't need to be there at all (and probably shouldn't have been in the source tarball to begin with).
Updated spec and srpm:
https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow.spec https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/taskflow/taskflow-3.4.0-4.fc38.src.rpm
1: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Build fails on PowerPC: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/rapidfuzz-cpp/build/5193301/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Seems ok: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/taskflow/build/5193302/ Can you add the noarch tag to the doc subpackage on importing?
Thanks for raising an issue upstream on the pdfs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157252 would be appreciated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #12 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Made -doc noarch and confirmed everything looks good in koji, thanks for the review! https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95716484
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- May also wish to check with upstream on naming. taskflow is generic there are several other taskflow repositories: https://github.com/openstack/taskflow https://github.com/CityOfPhiladelphia/taskflow https://github.com/microsoft/taskflow-react
A number of forks use the name cpp-taskflow: https://github.com/taskflow/taskflow/network/members
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/taskflow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7e214b070 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c7e214b070
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7e214b070 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-2023-c7e214b070 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c7e214b070
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=2156234
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156234
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2
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=2156234
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-01-15 01:58:15
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7e214b070 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=2156234
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c9f22b7cb2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com