Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-2.el6.src.rpm Description: The DSSP program standardizes protein secondary structure assignment. DSSP is a database of secondary structure assignments (and much more) for all protein entries in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). DSSP is also the program that calculates DSSP entries from PDB entries. Fedora Account System Username: loveshack This is needed for the do_dssp component of gromacs.
I forgot to add sample builds: Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9186717 Copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/71333/
Hello Dave, I don't have permissions to submit your package further but I did a quick review using a check-list, please find it below. Items that look ok to me are marked with x, those where I had no clue I have left empty for more knowledgeable reviewers to check and if there is a fail, it is marked with a minus sign. Only obvious minus is due to lack of %check portion in .spec but I don't know if it really is applicable to your sw. Hope this helps, -- Antti Järvinen Checklist: [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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Note: I did not read through ALL the code inside, but, yes, it looks ok. [x]: 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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: f21/amd64 [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. During build process? No? After build rpmlint complains only about spelling errors in person Names and that is expected, they're not in english language. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [?]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Question: I don't know if this is a stupid assumption but is there build-dependency to package gcc (or gcc-c++ or what is it named?) or is that dependency satisfied via some other dependency? [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: Well, it does. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: at least in resulting RPM the perms look all right to me [ ]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: 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: [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. Note: included [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: if Source0 in spec counts as documentation, answer is yes. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [ ]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [ ]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Ehh, sorry for my failure to read my own comments, there is also a failing check-list item due to usage of rm -rf %{buildroot} in install.
@Dave Why Make destination directory is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr ?
(In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #2) > Only obvious minus is due to lack of %check portion in .spec but I don't > know if it really is applicable to your sw. There are clearly no tests in the distribution, and I know of no regression test, though I made an example for the original version long ago. I'd include one if someone else knows and will actually do a review.
(In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #3) > Ehh, sorry for my failure to read my own comments, there is also a failing > check-list item due to usage of rm -rf %{buildroot} in install. That's in the template we're told to use, and we have an EPEL5 cluster.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > @Dave > > Why Make destination directory is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr ? It saved re-writing the makefile which doesn't use DESTDIR as normal. I didn't think a comment was necessary, but maybe it is.
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #7) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > > @Dave > > > > Why Make destination directory is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr ? > > It saved re-writing the makefile which doesn't use DESTDIR as normal. > I didn't think a comment was necessary, but maybe it is. DEST_DIR ?= /usr/local LIB_DIR = $(BOOST_LIB_DIR) INC_DIR = $(BOOST_INC_DIR) BIN_DIR = $(DEST_DIR)/bin MAN_DIR = $(DEST_DIR)/man/man1 It considers a manual local installation under /usr/local/ directory, but i think it's better a Makefile patching in order to use right directories for the packaging; so something like: ... %build # This changed somewhere between EPEL6 and Fedora 21. ## Set Boost's library directories if [ -f %{_libdir}/libboost_thread-mt.so ]; then echo "BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX = -mt" >> make.config else echo "BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX = " >> make.config fi echo "BOOST_INC_DIR=%{_includedir}/boost" >> make.config echo "BOOST_LIB_DIR=%{_libdir}" >> make.config ## Set Make sed -e 's|+= -O3|+= %{optflags}|g' -i makefile sed -e 's|?= /usr/local|= $(DESTDIR)|g' -i makefile sed -e 's|$(DEST_DIR)/bin|$(DEST_DIR)%{_bindir}|g' -i makefile sed -e 's|$(DEST_DIR)/man/man1|$(DEST_DIR)%{_mandir}/man1|g' -i makefile export DEBUG=0 make %{?_smp_mflags} %install make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL='install -p' ... Unless you want to package in EPEL5, you dont need %clean section. Also, use %license for LICENSE_1_0.txt.
Thanks for taking it. I made makefile use DESTDIR in the usual way (not as above) by patching it. Is this covered by policy somewhere? It seems a waste of effort to me, and I've made other things build in similar ways. What's the problem with having -O3 in CFLAGS? I assume it's known to be beneficial, and orion told me it was OK to use extra flags in that case. I don't understand why BOOST_{INC,LIB}_DIR, DEBUG, and INSTALL need setting. Using %licence gives: Processing files: dssp-2.2.1-3.el6.x86_64 error: File must begin with "/": Boost error: File must begin with "/": LICENSE_1_0.txt SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-3.el6.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #9) > Thanks for taking it. > > I made makefile use DESTDIR in the usual way (not as above) by patching it. > Is this covered by policy somewhere? It seems a waste of effort > to me, and I've made other things build in similar ways. We are doing same thing essentially. I prefer to use only one DESTDIR. > > What's the problem with having -O3 in CFLAGS? I assume it's known to be > beneficial, and > orion told me it was OK to use extra flags in that case. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > I don't understand why BOOST_{INC,LIB}_DIR, DEBUG, and INSTALL need setting. Boost must be set in Make.config file; better if set manually in the SPEC file in case of changes in future. Debugging is considered by Make but **explicitly** not required during building process. INSTALL='install -p' is ended up there by chance. I think it's useless. > > Using %licence gives: > > Processing files: dssp-2.2.1-3.el6.x86_64 > error: File must begin with "/": Boost > error: File must begin with "/": LICENSE_1_0.txt %license works only in Fedora (for now). https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 > %clean > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Dave, you should also pass distribution-wide linker flags to linker command: %build ... echo "LDOPTS=%{__global_ldflags}" >>make.config make %{?_smp_mflags} Doing rm -rf %{buildroot} is not an error (certainly not review-blocking) if you wish to maintain a single spec across all EL and Fedora branches, but you need to use %license where available, so try the following: %files %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} %license LICENSE_1_0.txt %doc changelog README.txt Since the package contains just one binary, please use %{_bindir}/mkdssp instead of %_bindir/* And, similarly, %{_mandir}/man1/mkdssp.1* Finally, I wouldn't insist on patching DESTDIR into the Makefile and simply used: make install DEST_DIR=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} in %install section. Sending a patch to support setting PREFIX and DESTDIR independently upstream is of course recommended.
I could have sworn I'd responded to this, but obviously didn't press save or something. Anyhow: I'm not sure who I should be responding to, and why half this stuff matters when it's not in any guidelines and differs in other packages. > > > > I don't understand why BOOST_{INC,LIB}_DIR, DEBUG, and INSTALL need setting. > > Boost must be set in Make.config file; better if set manually in the SPEC file > in case of changes in future. > Debugging is considered by Make but **explicitly** not required during building > process. Boost clearly doesn't need to be set there; it builds fine and it seems wrong explicitly to set the default paths -- what's special about boost, and why don't other packages need to do that? Sorry, I just don't understand the comment about DEBUG. > %build > ... > echo "LDOPTS=%{__global_ldflags}" >>make.config > make %{?_smp_mflags} __global_ldflags isn't defined in EPEL6, and it's not clear to me that the flags are generally a good idea for computational programs, but I added it conditionally. > Since the package contains just one binary, please use > > %{_bindir}/mkdssp > > instead of > > %_bindir/* Why? I've not seen that in any guidelines, and it doesn't seem to achieve anything useful, but I did it. It's wanted on our el5 system, and the spec now supports that. New SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-5.el5.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #12) > I could have sworn I'd responded to this, but obviously didn't press save > or something. Anyhow: > > I'm not sure who I should be responding to, and why half this stuff matters > when it's not in any guidelines and differs in other packages. > They are just advices; if you think they are useless (and it's not any official guidelines), you can do what you prefer. > > > > > > I don't understand why BOOST_{INC,LIB}_DIR, DEBUG, and INSTALL need setting. > > > > Boost must be set in Make.config file; better if set manually in the SPEC file > > in case of changes in future. > > Debugging is considered by Make but **explicitly** not required during building > process. > > Boost clearly doesn't need to be set there; it builds fine and it seems > wrong explicitly to set the default paths -- what's special about boost, and > why don't other packages need to do that? Boost paths point to default directories of potentially bundled files; as you can see in your SPEC file, Boost lib_suffix is right for Boost-1.41.0 (named 'boost141' in EPEL5 and 'boost' in CentOS6 or Rhel6) but not for Boost-1.48.0 (named 'boost148' in EPEL6 and 'boost' in Fedora): @echo "#BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX = -mt" >> make.config @echo "#BOOST_LIB_DIR = $(HOME)/projects/boost/lib" >> make.config @echo "#BOOST_INC_DIR = $(HOME)/projects/boost/include" >> make.config Here is why (to me) you SHOULD set explicitely Boost paths in the rpm building. > Sorry, I just don't understand the comment about DEBUG. Make provides a DEBUG variable that could be contemplated for debugging builds. > > > %build > > ... > > echo "LDOPTS=%{__global_ldflags}" >>make.config > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > __global_ldflags isn't defined in EPEL6, and it's not clear to me that the > flags are generally a good idea for computational programs, but I added it > conditionally. Define a macro so: %if 0%{?epel} < 7 %{!?__global_ldflags: %global __global_ldflags -Wl,-z,relro} %endif > > > Since the package contains just one binary, please use > > > > %{_bindir}/mkdssp > > > > instead of > > > > %_bindir/* > > Why? I've not seen that in any guidelines, and it doesn't seem to achieve > anything useful, but I did it. Because SPEC file is more legible in my opinion; using an aggregation symbol just for one binary name is not make sense. > > It's wanted on our el5 system, and the spec now supports that. > > New > SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-5.el5.src.rpm > Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) I (eventually) made changes to specify boost paths and define __global_ldflags. I still don't understand why I should define DEBUG for a production package which has the debuginfo package; it doesn't seem to do anything very useful anyway. I won't be able to look at any more for 10 days, as I'm on holiday. SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #14) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > > I (eventually) made changes to specify boost paths and define > __global_ldflags. > I still don't understand why I should define DEBUG for a production > package which has the debuginfo package; it doesn't seem to do anything > very useful anyway. You're not forced. > > I won't be able to look at any more for 10 days, as I'm on holiday. > > SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm > Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec Packaging fails on EPEL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10543567
I would not set DEBUG. As long as -g is being used to compile, that's fine.
Any news here?
I've obviously been missing some alerts. I hadn't seen the last two comments and didn't know the build failed in koji when it worked for me. I'll try to look at it tomorrow.
loveshack's scratch build of dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm for dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11447344
loveshack's scratch build of dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm for dist-5E-epel-testing-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11447403
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15) > Packaging fails on EPEL5: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10543567 That seems to have been a koji problem, like the first of the builds noted. The second worked, and it's running here on EPEL5.
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - EPEL5: Package does run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1203749-dssp/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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]: 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 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 [x]: EPEL5 requires explicit %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) ===== 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Explicit BuildRoot: tag as required by EPEL5 present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: dssp-2.2.1-6.fc24.i686.rpm dssp-2.2.1-6.fc24.src.rpm dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Joosten -> Jostle dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US te -> ch, Te, re dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hekkelman -> Hellman dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hooft -> Ho oft, Ho-oft, Hoof dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doi -> dpi, do, oi dssp.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nar -> ran, bar, mar dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Joosten -> Jostle dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US te -> ch, Te, re dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hekkelman -> Hellman dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hooft -> Ho oft, Ho-oft, Hoof dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doi -> dpi, do, oi dssp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nar -> ran, bar, mar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dssp-debuginfo-2.2.1-6.fc24.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- dssp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.59.0 libboost_iostreams.so.1.59.0 libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0 libboost_system.so.1.59.0 libboost_thread.so.1.59.0 libbz2.so.1 libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dssp: dssp dssp(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.cmbi.ru.nl/pub/software/dssp/dssp-2.2.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5fb5e7c085de16c05981e3a72869c8b082911a0b46e6dcc6dbd669c9f267e8e1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5fb5e7c085de16c05981e3a72869c8b082911a0b46e6dcc6dbd669c9f267e8e1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL5=1 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1203749 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, BATCH, EPEL6
dssp-2.2.1-6.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1a8dc2d36d
dssp-2.2.1-6.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-add531b6f0
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a0e26542e3
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1148a3ae68
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update dssp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1148a3ae68
dssp-2.2.1-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update dssp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1a8dc2d36d
dssp-2.2.1-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update dssp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-add531b6f0
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update dssp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a0e26542e3
dssp-2.2.1-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update dssp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-d51ab8cf60
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dssp-2.2.1-6.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dssp-2.2.1-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dssp-2.2.1-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dssp-2.2.1-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.