Bug 2245582

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557872
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245582-ls-qpack/srpm-builds/06557872/builder-live.log.gz

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.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not install properly:
  pkgconfig(xxhash) is not provided
  
- Remove bundled deps/xxhash files

- See unstripped-binary-or-object warnings probably caused by
  non-executable-in-bin of some binary files.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License",
     "BSD 3-Clause License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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]: 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 3428 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[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.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 5.2 starting (python version = 3.11.6, NVR = mock-5.2-1.fc38), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results install /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
Start(bootstrap): init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish(bootstrap): init plugins
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Mock Version: 5.2
INFO: Mock Version: 5.2
Start(bootstrap): chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (fallback)
Finish(bootstrap): chroot init
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (direct choice)
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M a3e53506b56a401997481401794b8fca -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.0f1qfb01:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 40 --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppu988ezh')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/encode-int
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/fuzz-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/interop-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/interop-encode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/encode-int 644
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/fuzz-decode 644
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/interop-decode 644
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/interop-encode 644
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
=========================================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ============================================================================




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/litespeedtech/ls-qpack/archive/v2.5.3/ls-qpack-2.5.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337


Requires
--------
ls-qpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libxxhash.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ls-qpack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit)
    ls-qpack(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(xxhash)

ls-qpack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ls-qpack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ls-qpack:
    libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit)
    ls-qpack
    ls-qpack(x86-64)

ls-qpack-devel:
    ls-qpack-devel
    ls-qpack-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(ls-qpack)

ls-qpack-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libls-qpack.so.2.5.3-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    ls-qpack-debuginfo
    ls-qpack-debuginfo(x86-64)

ls-qpack-debugsource:
    ls-qpack-debugsource
    ls-qpack-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2245582
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, R, Java, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks. Updated:
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06576325-ls-qpack/ls-qpack.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06576325-ls-qpack/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm

koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108227070

Approved.

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

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

- Use arched dependencies:
  Requires:  xxhash-devel%{?_isa}


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License".
     71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/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.
[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]: 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 3428 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).
[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.
[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]: 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: 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: ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpyjdxlsy8')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary encode-int
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fuzz-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-encode
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
============================================================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp__txufz1')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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: 31, packages: 4

ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/fuzz-decode /lib64/libm.so.6
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/interop-decode /lib64/libm.so.6
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/interop-encode /lib64/libm.so.6
ls-qpack.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libls-qpack.so.2.5.3 roundf	(/usr/lib64/libls-qpack.so.2.5.3)
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary encode-int
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fuzz-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-decode
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-encode
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/litespeedtech/ls-qpack/archive/v2.5.3/ls-qpack-2.5.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337


Requires
--------
ls-qpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libxxhash.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ls-qpack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit)
    ls-qpack(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libxxhash)
    xxhash-devel

ls-qpack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ls-qpack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ls-qpack:
    libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit)
    ls-qpack
    ls-qpack(x86-64)

ls-qpack-devel:
    ls-qpack-devel
    ls-qpack-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(ls-qpack)

ls-qpack-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libls-qpack.so.2.5.3-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    ls-qpack-debuginfo
    ls-qpack-debuginfo(x86-64)

ls-qpack-debugsource:
    ls-qpack-debugsource
    ls-qpack-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2245582
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ls-qpack

FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385

FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-918f356840

FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45

FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385

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

FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-918f356840 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-918f356840

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

FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 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-2023-91a26a0b45 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45

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

FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.