Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A multiplatform tool to save Touchstone files from the NanoVNA, sweep frequency spans in segments to gain more than 101 data points, and generally display and analyze the resulting data. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
I am ready for review swap.
Remove "A " from beginning of Summary. Why don't you run tests? Seems to be a GUI application, so you (or upstream) should create a desktop file. You'll need to remove the shebang from the __main__.py. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)", "GNU General Public License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1798513-nanovna-saver/licensecheck.txt [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. [?]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nanovna-saver-0.2.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm nanovna-saver-0.2.2-1.fc33.src.rpm nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/NanoVNASaver/__main__.py /bin/env python nanovna-saver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/NanoVNASaver/__main__.py 644 /bin/env python nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver nanovna-saver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/NanoVNASaver/__main__.py 644 /bin/env python nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver/archive/v0.2.2/nanovna-saver-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f Requires -------- nanovna-saver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(numpy) python3.8dist(pyqt5) python3.8dist(pyserial) python3.8dist(scipy) python3.8dist(setuptools) Provides -------- nanovna-saver: nanovna-saver python3.8dist(nanovnasaver) python3dist(nanovnasaver) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1798513 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Perl, R, PHP, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review, updated version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver-0.2.2-2.fc33.src.rpm
You'll need Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the {%_datadir}/icons/hicolor directories. Change the py?.? in %files to py* because it will break with 3.10. I just noticed how the tests were installed; this seems like a bug that should be reported upstream. It's fine to install tests, but installing into a top-level `test` directory is not right. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)", "GNU General Public License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1798513-nanovna-saver/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [?]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nanovna-saver-0.2.2-2.fc33.noarch.rpm nanovna-saver-0.2.2-2.fc33.src.rpm nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver nanovna-saver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver/archive/v0.2.2/nanovna-saver-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f Requires -------- nanovna-saver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(numpy) python3.8dist(pyqt5) python3.8dist(pyserial) python3.8dist(scipy) python3.8dist(setuptools) Provides -------- nanovna-saver: application() application(nanovna-saver.desktop) nanovna-saver python3.8dist(nanovnasaver) python3dist(nanovnasaver) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1798513 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, R, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #4) > I just noticed how the tests were installed; this seems like a bug that > should > be reported upstream. It's fine to install tests, but installing into a > top-level `test` directory is not right. > Reported: https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver/issues/164
New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc33.src.rpm
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)", "GNU General Public License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1798513-nanovna-saver/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc33.noarch.rpm nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc33.src.rpm nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver nanovna-saver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nanovna-saver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator nanovna-saver.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> nanovna-saver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NanoVNASaver 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mihtjel/nanovna-saver/archive/v0.2.2/nanovna-saver-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82fa37fcd487cbafebd07751f76fc5bad42f7e6f1276008f5463f0256e17748f Requires -------- nanovna-saver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 hicolor-icon-theme python(abi) python3.8dist(numpy) python3.8dist(pyqt5) python3.8dist(pyserial) python3.8dist(scipy) python3.8dist(setuptools) Provides -------- nanovna-saver: application() application(nanovna-saver.desktop) nanovna-saver python3.8dist(nanovnasaver) python3dist(nanovnasaver) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1798513 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nanovna-saver
FEDORA-2020-b382163e11 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b382163e11
FEDORA-2020-5b250b8093 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b250b8093
FEDORA-2020-fff14ef5dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fff14ef5dd
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fff14ef5dd
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b250b8093
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b382163e11
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nanovna-saver-0.2.2-3.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.