https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Bug ID: 2298104 Summary: Review Request: ibus-bamboo - A Vietnamese input method for IBus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tfujiwar@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.3-2.fc41.src.r... Description: A Vietnamese IME for IBus using Bamboo Engine. The open source Vietnamese keyboard supports most common encodings, popular Vietnamese typing methods, smart diacritics, spell checking, shortcuts,... Fedora Account System Username: fujiwara
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Kan-Ru Chen kanru@kanru.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kanru@kanru.info Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Kan-Ru Chen kanru@kanru.info --- I'm not familiar with golang so just skimming through the spec and packaging guideline..
It looks like the upstream uses bundled dependencies (in vendor/), some of them like godbus is packaged in Fedora.
For other bundled dependencies I think the License should include their licenses too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Kan-Ru Chen kanru@kanru.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #2 from Kan-Ru Chen kanru@kanru.info --- Oops, didn't mean to take this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #3 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Kan-Ru Chen from comment #1)
I'm not familiar with golang so just skimming through the spec and packaging guideline..
It looks like the upstream uses bundled dependencies (in vendor/), some of them like godbus is packaged in Fedora.
For other bundled dependencies I think the License should include their licenses too.
Thank you for your info. The SRPM was created by me for a few months ago and there was no new version 0.8.4. The new version should be evaluated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #4 from Jarema jarema.fedora@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jarema/ibus-bamboo/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jarema/ibus-bamboo/srpm-b... Copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jarema/ibus-bamboo/build/9158458/ Fedora Account System Username: jarema
Hi, I have put the new (0.8.4) version on Copr.
Please take a look :D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #5 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- Sorry for leaving the incomplete project as I had been busy.
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.fc42.s...
Since there is no official 0.8.4 GA release, I think it would be good to use the tag.
(In reply to Jarema from comment #4)
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jarema/ibus-bamboo/fedora... rawhide-x86_64/09158458-ibus-bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec
Thank you for translating the description.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/BambooEn | |gine/ibus-bamboo
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9178972 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - License file COPYING.emojione is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2298104
--- Comment #7 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- Updated the spec file.
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-2.fc42.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094339 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094339&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9178972 to 9183041
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9183041 (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=2298104
--- Comment #10 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #9)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- review-2298104-ibus-bamboo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09183041-ibus-bamboo/fedora- review/review.txt
Even if I specified "-buildmode=pie" for golang, rpmlint still warns "position-independent-executable-suggested":
% rpmbuild -bb --noclean ibus-bamboo.spec + /usr/bin/make -O -j2 V=1 VERBOSE=1 'GOLDFLAGS=-ldflags "-w -s -X main.Version=0.8.4" -trimpath -buildmode=pie' CGO_ENABLED=1 go build -ldflags "-w -s -X main.Version=0.8.4" -trimpath -buildmode=pie -o ibus-engine-bamboo -mod=vendor
% rpmlint ./ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #11 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- (In reply to fujiwara from comment #10)
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #9)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- review-2298104-ibus-bamboo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09183041-ibus-bamboo/fedora- review/review.txt
Even if I specified "-buildmode=pie" for golang, rpmlint still warns "position-independent-executable-suggested":
It was my failure. Seems Makefile has an error and `%{make_install}` runs build again so I need to specify `GOLDFLAGS` in both %build and %install.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #12 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- Updated the spec file.
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-3.fc42.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094379 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094379&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9183041 to 9188114
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9188114 (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=2298104
--- Comment #15 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- Updated the spec file.
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-4.fc42.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2094393 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2094393&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9188114 to 9188166
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9188166 (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=2298104
--- Comment #18 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- Updated the spec file.
Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/bamboo/ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-5.fc42.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #19 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2298104-ibus-bamboo/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package 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 5379 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. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2222080 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-5.fc43.x86_64.rpm ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-5.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpx2q3g999')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for vi. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for vi. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libz.so.1 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libpango-1.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libharfbuzz.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libcairo-gobject.so.2 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libcairo.so.2 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libgio-2.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 ibus-bamboo.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-bamboo /lib64/libresolv.so.2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BambooEngine/ibus-bamboo/archive/refs/tags/v0.8.4-RC6.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 610031553a033cde9f0c8bb08fd8578763611f24964566973997d7ae57a3c99e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 610031553a033cde9f0c8bb08fd8578763611f24964566973997d7ae57a3c99e
Requires -------- ibus-bamboo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gtk3 ibus libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(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) libharfbuzz.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- ibus-bamboo: application() application(ibus-setup-Bamboo.desktop) ibus-bamboo ibus-bamboo(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2298104 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Python, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Looks good to me. APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ibus-bamboo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #22 from fujiwara tfujiwar@redhat.com --- @Jarema:
I wish to get your fedora account name to add you as the project committer. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ibus-bamboo https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/fujiwara We can contact in chat rooms #i18n:fedoraproject.org or #ibus:libera.chat or with email.
It would be great if you could work on some build issues in the upstream. 1. libexecdir build option likes `./configure --libexecdir=/usr/libexec` for bamboo.xml, ibus-setup-Bamboo.desktop, $(ibus_e_name). 2. Separate `make build` and `make install`. It would be good to depend $(ibus_e_name) instead of build. 3. Fix `make t` not to access the network.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-123d611b20 (ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-123d611b20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-123d611b20 (ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-123d611b20
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca (ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca
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=2298104
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-123d611b20 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-123d611b20` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-123d611b20
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=2298104
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-07-06 01:10:32
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b6eed0f4ca (ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298104
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-123d611b20 (ibus-bamboo-0.8.4~RC6-1.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