Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/FoX.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/FoX-4.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: FoX is an XML library written in Fortran 95. It allows software developers to read, write and modify XML documents from Fortran applications without the complications of dealing with multiple language development. Fedora Account System Username: marcindulak Note: i'm submitting the package created by spot, as agreed at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/400
Created attachment 915920 [details] Comment (This comment was longer than 65,535 characters and has been moved to an attachment by Red Hat Bugzilla).
Two things I guess - * The directory ownership needs clarity I think. * Just need to check "undefined-non-weak-symbol" warning from rpmlint.
New version - fixes the undefined-non-weak-symbol (one needs to link explicitly the required libraries, like gfortran during soname creation). Can you be more specific about the directory ownership? Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoX/r01/FoX.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoX/r01/FoX-4.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
Honestly, I do not remember what I was complaining about! :) I will review this tomorrow evening.
i would like to keep this review going - when will you have time?
marcin, I will have this done in the next day or two. Got caught up with some other stuff. sorry about the delay.
Here is the detailed review. There are a few "issues" that need to be sorted out. Let me know if you need some help. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> Bogus warning. $ rpm -qlp FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm <snip> /usr/share/doc/FoX /usr/share/doc/FoX/README.FoX.txt /usr/share/licenses/FoX /usr/share/licenses/FoX/LICENSE - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/FoX See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> According to Naming guidelines, Conflicting Package Names Package names which differ only in case are still considered to be conflicting. You should follow the same basic steps outlined in #Approaching_Upstream The conflicting package is (of course) fox FOX is a C++ based Toolkit for developing Graphical User Interfaces easily and effectively. It offers a wide, and growing, collection of Controls, and provides state of the art facilities such as drag and drop, selection, as well as OpenGL widgets for 3D graphical manipulation. FOX also implements icons, images, and user-convenience features such as status line help, and tooltips. Tooltips may even be used for 3D objects. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/pkg_reviews/1104289-FoX/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses ---> Do you know what provides this directory? repoquery does not provide any information. http://www.rpm.org/ticket/116 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 My understanding was that /usr/share/licenses would be provided by filesystem and packages will copy the license files to this directory. While your usage is correct, I am not sure what would be the best course of action here. :( Thoughts? [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. ---> ---> There is this problem of package name 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: FoX-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. ---> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8073266 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-devel-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-static-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint FoX-static FoX-devel FoX FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- FoX-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): FoX(x86-64) FoX-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh FoX(x86-64) libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) FoX (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- FoX-static: FoX-static FoX-static(x86-64) FoX-devel: FoX-devel FoX-devel(x86-64) FoX: FoX FoX(x86-64) libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~walker/FoX/source/FoX-4.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1104289 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoXlibf/r01/FoXlibf.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoXlibf/r01/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm See the answers below. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7) > Here is the detailed review. There are a few "issues" that need to be sorted > out. Let me know if you need some help. > > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - 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 %doc. > Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > > ---> Bogus warning. > > $ rpm -qlp FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm > > <snip> > > /usr/share/doc/FoX > /usr/share/doc/FoX/README.FoX.txt > /usr/share/licenses/FoX > /usr/share/licenses/FoX/LICENSE > > > > - Package do not use a name that already exist > Note: A package already exist with this name, please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/FoX > See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ > NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names > > ---> According to Naming guidelines, > > Conflicting Package Names > > Package names which differ only in case are still considered to be > conflicting. You should follow the same basic steps outlined in > #Approaching_Upstream > > The conflicting package is (of course) fox > FOX is a C++ based Toolkit for developing Graphical User Interfaces easily > and effectively. It offers a wide, and growing, collection of Controls, and > provides state of the art facilities such as drag and drop, selection, as > well as OpenGL widgets for 3D graphical manipulation. FOX also implements > icons, images, and user-convenience features such as status line help, and > tooltips. Tooltips may even be used for 3D objects. > i have renamed it to FoXlibf. > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [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". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of > licensecheck in > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/pkg_reviews/1104289-FoX/licensecheck.txt > > ---> This is fine. > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must > be documented in the spec. > [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses > > ---> Do you know what provides this directory? repoquery does not provide > any information. > > http://www.rpm.org/ticket/116 > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 > > My understanding was that /usr/share/licenses would be provided by > filesystem and packages will copy the license files to this directory. > > While your usage is correct, I am not sure what would be the best course of > action here. :( > > Thoughts? on Rawhide yum provides "/usr/share/licenses" gives filesystem-3.2-32.fc22. /usr/share/licenses dir was added to filesystem on: Mon Jul 28 2014 Ondrej Vasik - 3.2-28 > > > [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses > [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). > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. > > ---> ---> There is this problem of package name 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [!]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: FoX-static. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: 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. > [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [x]: 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. > > ---> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8073266 > > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [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: FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm > FoX-devel-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm > FoX-static-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm > FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config > FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint FoX-static FoX-devel FoX > FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > FoX-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > FoX(x86-64) > > FoX-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > FoX(x86-64) > libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) > > FoX (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /sbin/ldconfig > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) > libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) > libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Provides > -------- > FoX-static: > FoX-static > FoX-static(x86-64) > > FoX-devel: > FoX-devel > FoX-devel(x86-64) > > FoX: > FoX > FoX(x86-64) > libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) > libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~walker/FoX/source/FoX-4.1.2.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1104289 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, > R, PHP, Ruby > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
That takes care of directory ownership issues. Package renaming avoids conflicts. Still builds - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8076241 I have no other issues. Package APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: FoXlibf Short Description: A Fortran XML Library Owners: marcindulak Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
WARNING: Requested package name FoXlibf doesn't match bug summary FoX
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #11) > WARNING: Requested package name FoXlibf doesn't match bug summary FoX the name has been changed to FoXlibf due to name conflict. Should i open another review request for FoXlibf, and ask for review again?
I can edit the bug summary for package name or I can do the revuew again.
Just edit summary of this bug and resumbit scm request (from fox maintainer)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el6
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el7
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc21
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc20
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc19
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.