7:37 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Bug ID: 2270581
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: loganjerry(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-anupq/gap-pkg-anupq.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-anupq/gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc41....
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package gives access to the following algorithms from inside
GAP:
1. A p-quotient algorithm to compute a power-commutator presentation for a
group of prime power order.
2. A p-group generation algorithm to generate descriptions of groups of prime
power order.
3. A standard presentation algorithm used to compute a canonical
power-commutator presentation of a p-group.
4. An algorithm which can be used to compute the automorphism group of a
p-group.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
7:50 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
URL| |https://gap-packages.github
| |.io/anupq/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7191426
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
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.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
1:50 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Matthieu Saulnier <casper(a)casperlefantom.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |casper(a)casperlefantom.net
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags| |fedora-review?
CC| |casper(a)casperlefantom.net
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
1:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu Saulnier <casper(a)casperlefantom.net> ---
Could you please review RHBZ#2227804 in exchange? :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:38 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Matthieu Saulnier <casper(a)casperlefantom.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Matthieu Saulnier <casper(a)casperlefantom.net> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Observations
============
- Add-ons that use GAPDoc to build documentation MUST include BuildRequires:
GAPDoc-latex
That package is pulled and already installed. So nothing to do here.
- GAP documentation MUST be installed under %{gap_libdir}/pkg or
%{gap_archdir}/pkg
This is done correctly in your package. It produces a lot of rpmlint
complaints. But it is matching the Guideline 100%.
- In the %%check section, a shell redirection is not needed to run the tests
suite.
That's not a blocker anyway.
Ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Artistic License
2.0",
"FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]",
"FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]",
"Artistic License 2.0". 433 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Note: %%autochangelog macro used.
[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.
Note: ExcludeArch used is optional.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 282900 bytes in 4 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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).
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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: gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
gap-pkg-anupq-doc-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40.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/tmpn6s_yyme')]
checks: 32, packages: 5
gap-pkg-anupq.src: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l en_US
automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l
en_US
automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/tst/test1.pga
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/standalone/examples/pga_3gp
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/chooser.html
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/lefttoc.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/nocolorprompt.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/ragged.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/rainbow.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/times.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings, 31
filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s =================
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc40.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/tmpw8913ntn')]
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: 2.5.0
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
checks: 32, packages: 4
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l
en_US
automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/tst/test1.pga
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/standalone/examples/pga_3gp
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/chooser.html
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/lefttoc.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/nocolorprompt.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/ragged.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/rainbow.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/times.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.css
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.js
/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 28 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/anupq/releases/download/v3.3.0/anupq-3.3....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d0bc6e583718a311d4d1fe5e16fc94c71b67d894cf0fa00df99181e1967f615c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d0bc6e583718a311d4d1fe5e16fc94c71b67d894cf0fa00df99181e1967f615c
Requires
--------
gap-pkg-anupq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/perl
gap-core(x86-64)
gap-pkg-autpgrp
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
gap-pkg-anupq-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gap-pkg-anupq(x86-64)
gap-pkg-autpgrp-doc
gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
gap-pkg-anupq:
gap-pkg-anupq
gap-pkg-anupq(x86-64)
gap-pkg-anupq-doc:
gap-pkg-anupq-doc
gap-pkg-anupq-doc(x86-64)
gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo
gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo(x86-64)
gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource:
gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource
gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource(x86-64)
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
12:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> ---
Thank you for the review, Matthieu!
(In reply to Matthieu Saulnier from comment #3)
- GAP documentation MUST be installed under %{gap_libdir}/pkg or
%{gap_archdir}/pkg
This is done correctly in your package. It produces a lot of rpmlint
complaints. But it is matching the Guideline 100%.
Yes, the documentation has to be installed where it is for gap itself to read
it correctly. Upstream is working on a fix for this, but it hasn't landed in
the main gap package yet.
- In the %%check section, a shell redirection is not needed to run
the tests
suite.
That's not a blocker anyway.
Thanks for noticing that. I had to introduce shell redirections for other
gap-pkg-* packages a few gap releases ago. I don't remember the details of the
problem now, but there was some sort of issue with gap hanging instead of
exiting without the redirection. That appears to have been fixed. I'll remove
the redirections from the other packages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
12:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-anupq
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-09b384874d (gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-09b384874d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
7:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-09b384874d 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-2024-09b384874d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-09b384874d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
2:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2270581] Review Request: gap-pkg-anupq - ANU p-Quotient for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2024-04-19 21:23:53
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2024-09b384874d (gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the
Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270581
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
44
days inactive
73
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com