Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612120-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612120-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit-0-0.2.gitd6609a7.fc34.src.rpm Description: xcb-imdkit is an implementation of xim protocol in xcb, comparing with the implementation of IMDkit with Xlib, and xim inside Xlib, it has less memory foot print, better performance, and safer on malformed client. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49309699 > License: LGPLv2 licensecheck picked up a couple of files with a different license: xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) Here's the text of the license for reference: https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP I checked the files and indeed the license comments in them match the NTP license. The problem is that NTP is not an official license tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List I will contact Fedora Legal to get some feedback on this. Upstream should also be informed, I think, since they do not mention the NTP license in the README. They mention the BSD license, but licensecheck didn't pick up any BSD-licensed files. > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > BuildRequires: libxcb-devel, xcb-util-devel, xcb-util-keysyms-devel Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically? Also, could you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format for the -devel packages? > %files > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-only.txt > %doc README.md > %{_libdir}/*.so.* I would be more explicit in the final line, like this: %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.* You can also use "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*" so that soname bumps across package updates are captured more easily. > %files devel > %{_includedir}/xcb-imdkit > %{_libdir}/cmake/XCBImdkit > %{_libdir}/*.so Same here - "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so" instead of "%{_libdir}/*.so" The full review matrix: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Review: Theoretically yes, but the NTP license doesn't have a dedicated license tag. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit/licensecheck.txt Review: see comment above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: Changelog in prescribed format. Review: Not sure about this. rpmlint complains and package uses commit hashes for versioning. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Review: Yes, but see comments about licenses. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: 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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Review: Tested in mock and in Koji. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xcb- imdkit-devel Review: Not true - the Requires line is there. [?]: 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. [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. Review: Tested in Koji. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm xcb-imdkit-devel-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm xcb-imdkit-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm xcb-imdkit-debugsource-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.src.rpm xcb-imdkit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xim -> mix, xi, xis xcb-imdkit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.20200812gitd6609a7 ['0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33', '0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7'] xcb-imdkit-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary xcb-imdkit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xcb-imdkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xim -> mix, xi, xis 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xcb-imdkit-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fcitx/xcb-imdkit/archive/d6609a72465cf7e0479aea075a4d2e5d7ca018eb/xcb-imdkit-d6609a72465cf7e0479aea075a4d2e5d7ca018eb.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f0878788d35407842d3cf0f33be9b50671a92365c61118d383cd700f8153d8f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0878788d35407842d3cf0f33be9b50671a92365c61118d383cd700f8153d8f8 Requires -------- xcb-imdkit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xcb-imdkit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libxcb-imdkit.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(xcb) pkgconfig(xcb-util) xcb-imdkit(x86-64) xcb-imdkit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xcb-imdkit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xcb-imdkit: libxcb-imdkit.so.0()(64bit) xcb-imdkit xcb-imdkit(x86-64) xcb-imdkit-devel: cmake(XCBImdkit) cmake(xcbimdkit) pkgconfig(xcb-imdkit) xcb-imdkit-devel xcb-imdkit-devel(x86-64) xcb-imdkit-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xcb-imdkit-debuginfo xcb-imdkit-debuginfo(x86-64) xcb-imdkit-debugsource: xcb-imdkit-debugsource xcb-imdkit-debugsource(x86-64)
Got a response in the Fedora Legal mailing list to my NTP license inquiry: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/PQZQPBFMGNP6DUXFUVCICSLLYB3NZ3FA/ The License field should contain the following: LGPLv2 and MIT and a comment above explaining that some files in src/xlibi18n use the "old style" MIT license known as NTP.
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49309699 > > > License: LGPLv2 > > licensecheck picked up a couple of files with a different license: > xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) > xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) > xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) > xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) > xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) > > Here's the text of the license for reference: > https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP > > I checked the files and indeed the license comments in them match the NTP > license. The problem is that NTP is not an official license tag: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing: > Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List > > I will contact Fedora Legal to get some feedback on this. Upstream should > also be informed, I think, since they do not mention the NTP license in the > README. They mention the BSD license, but licensecheck didn't pick up any > BSD-licensed files. > > > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules > > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > > BuildRequires: libxcb-devel, xcb-util-devel, xcb-util-keysyms-devel > > Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically? > Also, could you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" > format for the -devel packages? > > > %files > > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-only.txt > > %doc README.md > > %{_libdir}/*.so.* > > I would be more explicit in the final line, like this: > %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.* > > You can also use "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*" so that soname bumps across > package updates are captured more easily. > > > %files devel > > %{_includedir}/xcb-imdkit > > %{_libdir}/cmake/XCBImdkit > > %{_libdir}/*.so > > Same here - "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so" instead of "%{_libdir}/*.so" Above are fixed > > The full review matrix: > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > Generic: > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > Review: Theoretically yes, but the NTP license doesn't have a dedicated > license tag. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", > "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License". 87 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit/licensecheck.txt > Review: see comment above. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [?]: Changelog in prescribed format. > Review: Not sure about this. rpmlint complains > and package uses commit hashes for versioning. This is because %forgemeta did something tricky, the snapshot date generated can be different. Anyway, changed to 20200811, should silent the warning. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > Review: Yes, but see comments about licenses. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [?]: 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 1 files. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [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 > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > Review: Tested in mock and in Koji. > [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xcb- > imdkit-devel > Review: Not true - the Requires line is there. > [?]: 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. > [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. > Review: Tested in Koji. > [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm > xcb-imdkit-devel-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm > xcb-imdkit-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm > xcb-imdkit-debugsource-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm > xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.src.rpm > xcb-imdkit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xim -> mix, xi, > xis > xcb-imdkit.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 0-0.1.20200812gitd6609a7 ['0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33', > '0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7'] > xcb-imdkit-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary > xcb-imdkit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > xcb-imdkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xim -> mix, xi, xis > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: xcb-imdkit-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-devel > (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-debugsource > (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit > (none): E: no installed packages by name xcb-imdkit-debuginfo > 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/fcitx/xcb-imdkit/archive/ > d6609a72465cf7e0479aea075a4d2e5d7ca018eb/xcb-imdkit- > d6609a72465cf7e0479aea075a4d2e5d7ca018eb.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > f0878788d35407842d3cf0f33be9b50671a92365c61118d383cd700f8153d8f8 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > f0878788d35407842d3cf0f33be9b50671a92365c61118d383cd700f8153d8f8 > > > Requires > -------- > xcb-imdkit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) > libxcb.so.1()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > xcb-imdkit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/pkg-config > cmake-filesystem(x86-64) > libxcb-imdkit.so.0()(64bit) > pkgconfig(xcb) > pkgconfig(xcb-util) > xcb-imdkit(x86-64) > > xcb-imdkit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > xcb-imdkit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > xcb-imdkit: > libxcb-imdkit.so.0()(64bit) > xcb-imdkit > xcb-imdkit(x86-64) > > xcb-imdkit-devel: > cmake(XCBImdkit) > cmake(xcbimdkit) > pkgconfig(xcb-imdkit) > xcb-imdkit-devel > xcb-imdkit-devel(x86-64) > > xcb-imdkit-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > xcb-imdkit-debuginfo > xcb-imdkit-debuginfo(x86-64) > > xcb-imdkit-debugsource: > xcb-imdkit-debugsource > xcb-imdkit-debugsource(x86-64)
Things look mostly clean now. I managed to build everything in a local mock environment and all of the tests pass now. rpmlint picked up something funny, though: xcb-imdkit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1 555 I checked the permissions of other libs in %{_libdir} and they're typically 755. Inside mock I see the usual "umask 022" calls which should set everything to 755. rpmlint doesn't complain about the -devel package either. The versioned SO file inside the xcb-imdkit RPM generated inside mock indeed has permissions set to 555. Curiously, when I build the package inside a Fedora 32 mock, I get correct permissions (755) for the SO file. Here are the `ls -l` records after installing the f32 version of xcb-imdkit on my system: lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 20 Aug 17 21:42 libxcb-imdkit.so.0 -> libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 575216 Aug 17 21:42 libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1 Could this be some sort of f32->f34 bug?
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4) > Could this be some sort of f32->f34 bug? You've probably run into the glibc + systemd-nspawn bug that has been discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Try adding "--isolation=simple" to the mock arguments.
> You've probably run into the glibc + systemd-nspawn bug that has been discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Try adding "--isolation=simple" to the mock arguments. Indeed, I have. This did the trick, thanks! Package approved!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xcb-imdkit
Built in rawhide