Bug 2335285

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/selenium-manager.git/plain/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08464079-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.27.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8464111
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335285-selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08464111-selenium-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

I made a small change to the naming of patches

Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/selenium-manager.git/plain/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08488075-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.27.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2065183 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8464111 to 8489125

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8489125
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335285-selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08489125-selenium-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

Can you upload the spec and SRPM file in a different location and provide links, please?

COPR-dist-git has been taken offline and I don't know when it's going to be back up.

ah, this should work in the meantime.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08488075-selenium-manager/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08488075-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.27.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

First pass review (sorry for the delay):

1. You can simplify the Source0 line by reusing URL (also, use the standard format documented here):
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

"""
Source0:       %{url}/archive/%{version}/selenium-%{version}.tar.gz
"""

2. This comment is not really accurate:

> Both patches are trying to circumvent generic build requirements which are currently not usable in fedora

The problem is that the application doesn't declare those dependencies or code paths as OS specific, so the dependencies are unconditionally pulled in even when they're unnecessary. The patches looks correct though.

For the update of the "zip" crate from version 0.6 to 2.x, that will likely happen soon in Fedora. And an update for "which" from v6 to v7 should be acceptable for the upstream project.

3. The BuildRequires are all (but one) redundant:

> BuildRequires: rust
> BuildRequires: cargo
> BuildRequires: rust-packaging
> BuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24

rust is pulled in by cargo.
cargo is pulled in by cargo-rpm-macros.
rust-packaging is an alias for cargo-rpm-macros that is only provided for backwards compatibility.
Please drop all but "cargo-rpm-macros >= 24".

4. The summary is repetitive. It should not just repeat the package name. In this case I would suggest:

"""
Summary:       Automated driver and browser management for Selenium
"""

5. This is wrong (and weirdly placed):

> %define cargo_install_lib 0

Please move this to the top of the spec file, and replace %define with %global.
The former should basically never be used, unless you *really* know that you *need* it.

6. If the project doesn't support running *any* tests without internet access, then just remove this:

> #Project doesn't support offline tests
> #%%check
> #%%cargo_test

Keeping it commented out doesn't provide any value IMO.

7. You need to update the License tag with the statically linked Rust dependencies.

Adding these two macros at the end of the %build scriptlet would be the first step (to generate the list of statically linked dependencies):

"""
%{cargo_license_summary}
%{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies
"""

Then you can include the written file with "%license LICENSE.dependencies" in %files, and adapt the License tag for the license summary written to the build.log during the build.


Side note:

It looks like this project provides implementations of "selenium-manager" in multiple programming languages ... I suppose it would only ever make sense to provide a Fedora package for *one* of those implementations (in this case, the one in Rust)?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #10)
> Side note:
> 
> It looks like this project provides implementations of "selenium-manager" in
> multiple programming languages ... I suppose it would only ever make sense
> to provide a Fedora package for *one* of those implementations (in this
> case, the one in Rust)?

This is where this review comes from:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278096#c13

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #10)
Thank you for the feedback!
I have hopefully corrected the issues you highlighted.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08556293-selenium-manager/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08556293-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.27.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Thanks for the update! More notes:

8. I took another look at the "remove-unsupported-function" patch, and it's not entirely correct.

> let _ = untargz(compressed_file, target, log);
> Ok(())

This means "do untargz()" and discard any errors.

Replacing those two lines with this one line should work, and propagate errors (as is done in the original code):

"""
untargz(compressed_file, target, log)?
"""

============================================================

Regarding the other issues raised previously:

1. ✅

2. ✅

3. ✅

4. was not applied, summary still repeats the package name

Additionally, the %description doesn't sound accurate. Is that taken from "selenium" in general?

Maybe taking some inspiration from the rust/README.md file would be more appropriate for %descruption:

"""
%description
Selenium Manager is a command-line tool implemented in Rust that provides
automated driver and browser management for Selenium.
"""

5. ✅

6. ✅

7. The license tag was not adapted correctly.

The list of licenses printed during the build are:

# (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016
# 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0
# Apache-2.0
# Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0
# Apache-2.0 OR ISC OR MIT
# Apache-2.0 OR MIT
# Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT
# BSD-3-Clause
# ISC
# ISC AND MIT AND OpenSSL
# MIT
# MIT OR Apache-2.0
# MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib
# MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0
# MPL-2.0
# Unlicense OR MIT
# Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT

I would recommend to paste this into the spec file for reference, this is common practice for Rust packages.

The resulting License tag would be:

"""
License:        Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND OpenSSL AND MPL-2.0 AND Unicode-DFS-2016 AND (0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR ISC OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0 OR Zlib) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)
"""

This string validates successfully using "license-validate <expression>".

see here for an example how almost all Rust packages handle this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/rawhide/f/rust-ripgrep.spec#_28-35

or, if you would like to keep this better diffable and more readable, you can use the %shrink macro, like here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-orjson/blob/rawhide/f/python-orjson.spec#_53-60

Created attachment 2067004 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8489125 to 8558140

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8558140
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335285-selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558140-selenium-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND MIT AND BSL-1.0 AND OBSD AND BSD-3-CLAUSE AND ISC AND OpenSSL AND Zlib AND MPL-2.0'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

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.

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #14)
Thank you again! 

I have made the following corrections:

8. Patch changes
I have changed the following lines
 
> let _ = untargz(compressed_file, target, log);
> Ok(())

to

> untargz(compressed_file, target, log)

I have removed the ? operator as that was creating type mismatch error.

4. Summary, Description

Adjusted based on your suggestions

7. Licenses

I have used the shrink macro for the list of licenses you provided

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558693-selenium-manager/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558693-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.27.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2067010 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8558140 to 8558705

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8558705
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335285-selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558705-selenium-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

Thanks, the package looks pretty good to me now!

Two things I'd like to have fixed before I approve the package:

1) The indentation of "Tag: Value" lines is inconsistent.
Looks like most are indented by 15 characters instead of 16, I assume this is unintentional.

2) I would recommend to add a comment to the spec file saying that the full break-down of the licenses that make up the License tag is documented in the LICENSE.dependencies file in the package. This is technically required by the Packaging Guidelines.

In general, I recommend keeping the output of %cargo_license_summary from the build.log as a comment above the resulting "License" tag to make diffing for new versions easier.

It might also be good to add a comment to the effect of "the Rust implementation in rust/ is Apache-2.0 licensed, other code covered by different licenses is neither used nor shipped in built packages".

There's another thing that would be "nice to have" before importing the package, but not a "must have":

Upstream has released a new version last week, 4.28.0. Updating to the latest version before I approve this review is not required, but it would be great if you could check if bumping from 4.27.0 to 4.28.0 would be easy or not. The diff v4.27.0...v4.28.0 restricted to rust/ folder looks like there are compatibility fixes for newer Firefox versions, so that might be "nice to have".

Thank you.

I have adjusted the intend to 16 characters.

Added the comments mentioning LICENCE.dependencies file and %cargo_licence_summary as well as the comment explaining the /rust distinction.

Updated the package to 4.28.0.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08577133-selenium-manager/selenium-manager.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08577133-selenium-manager/selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2073992 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8558705 to 8577143

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8577143
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335285-selenium-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08577143-selenium-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

I took another look at the patch to remove "unused" functions, and I don't think it's actually correct.

With the patch, all compressed files as if they were .tar.gz files, even if they're not, because
1) the check for the file extension is dropped entirely and only the "if" branch for .tar.gz is kept, and
2) the error path for "no file extension matched ("Downloaded file cannot be uncompressed") is removed entirely.

At least the "if extension.eq_ignore_ascii_case(GZ) {}" and "else return Err" cases should be kept,
otherwise files with non-tar.gz extensions will be attempted to be uncompressed as if they were .tar.gz files (which would likely explode somehow).

Note that this looks like it would require adding back some removed dependencies (notably "infer", which was in Fedora at some point, and would need to be un-retired): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-infer

The package itself looks ok, though. Just make sure that the patch you're applying is not actually bricking the program :)

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

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


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

-> This is a false positive due to files that are unused for building this package.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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 1417 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[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.

===== 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp54u0ra8p')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

selenium-manager.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary selenium-manager
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 

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

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

selenium-manager.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary selenium-manager
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium/archive/selenium-4.28.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ac42a8827f280bb5ccc48c9490ea70aa5a04a2929a1a89e49ba5cc2ed6f36584
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac42a8827f280bb5ccc48c9490ea70aa5a04a2929a1a89e49ba5cc2ed6f36584

Requires
--------
selenium-manager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
selenium-manager:
    selenium-manager
    selenium-manager(x86-64)

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/selenium-manager

FEDORA-2025-b2f3c8828d (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b2f3c8828d

FEDORA-2025-b2f3c8828d (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-db9506d630 (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-db9506d630

FEDORA-2025-ae5821d142 (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae5821d142

FEDORA-2025-db9506d630 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-db9506d630 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-db9506d630

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

FEDORA-2025-ae5821d142 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-2025-ae5821d142 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae5821d142

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

FEDORA-2025-db9506d630 (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-ae5821d142 (selenium-manager-4.28.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.