Bug 2025307

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

- Please add a spec file comment linking the PR corresponding to Patch0:

    # https://github.com/grom358/hqx/pull/3

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

  and another one linking the PR correspoding to Source1:

    # https://github.com/grom358/hqx/pull/4

  (Thanks for sending these upstream.)

- Please consider also sending a PR upstream to fix the obsolete FSF postal
  addresses in the license/copyright statements in the source file headers. You
  can apply the patch downstream, or not, at your discretion, as long as it
  doesn’t touch the license file (which does already have the current address).

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address

- This is fine, and no change is required:

    rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.a

  but it might be easier, and save a little compiling time, to do this instead:

    %configure --disable-static

- This is obsolete in Fedora—you need it only on EPEL7—so please remove it
  unless you are trying to support EPEL7 with the same spec file.

    %ldconfig_scriptlets

- While the base package automatically depends on the -libs subpackage due to
  the “hqx” executable linking “libhqx.so.1”, you should make this explicit
  with a fully-versioned arch-specific dependency, just like the one in
  -libs-devel:

    Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

  This isn’t exactly the situation described in
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package,
  but the same philosophy applies.

- As long as you aren’t supporting EPEL7, you can write

    install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/
    install -m 644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1

  as

    install -m 644 -p -D %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1

  but what you’re doing is perfectly fine, and no change is required.

===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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 Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 19 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2025307-hqx/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     (except as noted)

[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]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hqx-libs
     , hqx-libs-devel

     Should have fully-versioned dependency from base package on hqx-libs

[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     Patches are already offered upstream; links should be added

[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Upstream provides no tests.

[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/grom358/hqx/archive/v1.2/hqx-v1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396


Requires
--------
hqx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libIL.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

hqx-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

hqx-libs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    hqx-libs(x86-64)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(IL)

hqx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

hqx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
hqx:
    hqx
    hqx(x86-64)

hqx-libs:
    hqx-libs
    hqx-libs(x86-64)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)

hqx-libs-devel:
    hqx-libs-devel
    hqx-libs-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(hqx)

hqx-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    hqx-debuginfo
    hqx-debuginfo(x86-64)

hqx-debugsource:
    hqx-debugsource
    hqx-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025307
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 7

hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64.debug
hqx-libs-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on hqx-libs /usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hqx-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-1.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/45/64c93a670f8f823d71734a7f960a1ebf9381a2 ../../../.build-id/45/64c93a670f8f823d71734a7f960a1ebf9381a2
hqx-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/be/5a38babb18b68fc658679d232d730f99700a3c ../../../.build-id/be/5a38babb18b68fc658679d232d730f99700a3c
 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.0 s

> Please add a spec file comment linking the PR corresponding to Patch0:
Done.

> and another one linking the PR correspoding to Source1:
Comment added, but Source replaced with the Patch sent upstream.

> it might be easier, and save a little compiling time, to do this instead:
>   %configure --disable-static
Thanks. Changed.

> While the base package automatically depends on the -libs subpackage due to
> the “hqx” executable linking “libhqx.so.1”, you should make this explicit
> with a fully-versioned arch-specific dependency...
Done.

> As long as you aren’t supporting EPEL7, you can write...
>   install -m 644 -p -D %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1
Not needed any more, as the man page is now installed by the patched Makefile.

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hqx-1.2-2/hqx.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/hqx-1.2-2/hqx-1.2-2.fc34.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80582686

Looks good to me! The package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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 Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 20 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2025307-hqx/20220116/2025307-hqx/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libhqx
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Upstream provides no tests.

[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/grom358/hqx/archive/v1.2/hqx-v1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a44f1745b7fb0321c1d244822d79505df7cf85cfe383ee70b16f5bcd6803396


Requires
--------
hqx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libIL.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libhqx(x86-64)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libhqx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libhqx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libhqx(x86-64)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(IL)

hqx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

hqx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
hqx:
    hqx
    hqx(x86-64)

libhqx:
    libhqx
    libhqx(x86-64)
    libhqx.so.1()(64bit)

libhqx-devel:
    libhqx-devel
    libhqx-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(hqx)

hqx-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    hqx-debuginfo
    hqx-debuginfo(x86-64)

hqx-debugsource:
    hqx-debugsource
    hqx-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025307
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, R, Python, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 7

hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64.debug
libhqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64.debug
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hqx-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64.debug
libhqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64.debug
libhqx-devel.x86_64: E: no-library-dependency-on libhqx /usr/lib64/libhqx.so.1.0.0
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hqx-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hqx-1.2-2.fc36.x86_64
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ef/997a1bff5bac20d22af8edb4498bee5795a8f0 ../../../.build-id/ef/997a1bff5bac20d22af8edb4498bee5795a8f0
libhqx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7b/9fa23c60c464eea37714158826b3c2d2415a6e ../../../.build-id/7b/9fa23c60c464eea37714158826b3c2d2415a6e
 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.2 s

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hqx

FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9

FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d

FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-330e277a4d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-e25ed249c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.