https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Bug ID: 2320142 Summary: Review Request: wfview - Software for the control of Icom radios Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskarvad@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview-1.64-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: The wfview is open-source software for the control of modern Icom radios, including the IC-7300, IC-7610, IC-705, IC-R8600 and IC-9700. USB and LAN are supported. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gitlab.com/eliggett | |/wfview/ Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8161953 (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=2320142
Knud Christiansen knud.skrald@guldberg.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |knud.skrald@guldberg.info
--- Comment #2 from Knud Christiansen knud.skrald@guldberg.info --- Tested in a fresh F39
Installs all package and are operational connecting to a wfview server running on other machine
perfect !
Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pemensik@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- I am not sure how wfserver should be used exactly. But if that is indeed a service, it should have either system or user systemd service packaged too. At least from its name it seems so.
It seems resampler/ contains similar header as speexdsp-devel-1.2.1-5.fc39.x86_64 package. Are they compatible?
Should be speexdsp be used during build and local copy deleted? At least resampler/COPYING contains outdated GNU Temple address. If it contains non-trivial local changes, it should be included in spec with Provides: bundled(speexdsp). Ideally with version of bundled copy, if known. I think issue should be created at upstream to try reuse system speexdsp library, if it has version high enough.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- diff -u /usr/include/speex/speex_resampler.h resampler/speex_resampler.h showed just one blank line, they should be compatible.
Therefore package needs to be modified use speexdsp-devel from the system.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview-1.64-2.fc42.src.rpm
I don't know whether the streaming works, I will test it during weekend. If it works, I will open upstream ticket to unbundle speexdsp, but it compiles at least.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2053574 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2053574&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8161953 to 8173638
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8173638 (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=2320142
--- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wfview/wfview-1.64-3.fc42.src.rpm
Tested and it works OK.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2054025 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2054025&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8173638 to 8181805
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8181805 (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=2320142
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Gitlab | |eliggett/wfview/-/issues/14 | |7 Red Hat Bugzilla 2295879
--- Comment #11 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- There is already wfview review in bug #2295879. It might be better to work with previous author to create single package. Maybe with requesting commit rights to the package after it?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2295879
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2295879 [Bug 2295879] Review Request: wfview - Control modern Icom radios
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #12 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- *** Bug 2295879 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142 Bug 2320142 depends on bug 2295879, which changed state.
Bug 2295879 Summary: Review Request: wfview - Control modern Icom radios https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2295879
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #13 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/1981103-pihpsdr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 8764 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-doc-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.noarch.rpm pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-debugsource-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm pihpsdr-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.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/tmpujod7rij')] checks: 32, packages: 5
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr =================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 154 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.4 s ==================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-3.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpxjeuj7me')] checks: 32, packages: 1
==================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 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: 4
pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 151 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/archive/7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbd... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f
Requires -------- pihpsdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pihpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pihpsdr
pihpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pihpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pihpsdr: application() application(pihpsdr.desktop) pihpsdr pihpsdr(x86-64)
pihpsdr-doc: pihpsdr-doc
pihpsdr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pihpsdr-debuginfo pihpsdr-debuginfo(x86-64)
pihpsdr-debugsource: pihpsdr-debugsource pihpsdr-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981103 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #14 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Just a minor issue remains, that %check is not present. At least desktop-file-validate should be present in %check, not %install in my opinion. It should contain also appstream-util validate-relax org.wfview.wfview.metainfo.xml for metainfo checking.
It seems metainfo file validation is not optional: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data... Also basename of desktop file MUST match name of metainfo. This is not currently the case. Since I have already given review+, I am not going to revoke it again. Please fix AppData anyway.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |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/wfview
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #16 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #14)
Just a minor issue remains, that %check is not present. At least desktop-file-validate should be present in %check, not %install in my opinion. It should contain also appstream-util validate-relax org.wfview.wfview.metainfo.xml for metainfo checking.
It seems metainfo file validation is not optional: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ #_app_data_validate_usage Also basename of desktop file MUST match name of metainfo. This is not currently the case. Since I have already given review+, I am not going to revoke it again. Please fix AppData anyway.
Thanks, fixed. I also fixed systemd service file mode, it shouldn't be executable.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-30b482896b (wfview-1.64-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-30b482896b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd (wfview-1.64-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c (wfview-1.64-3.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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-a1fd0fcf1c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c
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=2320142
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd 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-2024-7681f84ebd *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd
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=2320142
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-30b482896b 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-2024-30b482896b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-30b482896b
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=2320142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-11-20 14:04:00
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a1fd0fcf1c (wfview-1.64-3.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320142
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-7681f84ebd (wfview-1.64-3.fc40) 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=2320142
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-30b482896b (wfview-1.64-3.fc41) 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