Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/master/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/8337/81158337/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This program generates bridge hands. It can be told to generate only hands satisfying conditions like being balanced, having a range of HCPs, controls, or other user-definable properties. Hands can be output in various formats, like pbn for feeding to other bridge programs, deal itself, or split up into a file per player for practice. Extensible via Tcl. FAS user: gtwilliams
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/master/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4939/81204939/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm I made some minor corrections to the spec file to properly define the build environment (I got lucky in koji before, I guess) and to correct the FSF street address in some of the sources and to own the /usr/share directories that this package creates.
> Source0: https://github.com/gtwilliams/deal/blob/master/deal-3.1.9.tar.gz This URL fetches the latest commit from master and simply names the file "deal-3.1.9.tar.gz". This means that the contents of the file will change over time. You should either add a tag to the git repo, or refer a specific commit, like this: "Source0: %{url}/archive/%{git_tag_or_commit}/%{name}-%{git_tag_or_commit}.tar.gz" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services Alternatively, you can use the forge macros to handle this for you. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control > %global debug_package %{nil} No-go. We want debuginfo in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ Looking at the repo, you overwrite CPPLAGS in the Makefile with "CPPFLAGS = -O3 -fPIE" You can try the following instead: 1. Call "%set_build_flags" at the start of %build to set Fedora's CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS 2. Use "+=" in the Makefile to append -fPIE instead of overwriting > mkdir -p %{build_data}/input > mkdir -p %{build_data}/format > mkdir -p %{build_data}/lib > mkdir -p %{build_data}/ex > mkdir -p %{build_docs}/html > mkdir -p %{build_docs}/graphics > ... > install -p -m 0644 input/* %{build_data}/input > install -p -m 0644 format/* %{build_data}/format > install -p -m 0644 lib/* %{build_data}/lib > install -p -m 0644 ex/* %{build_data}/ex > install -p -m 0644 docs/html/*.* %{build_docs}/html > install -p -m 0644 docs/graphics/* %{build_docs}/graphics Could you use "cp -a" here instead? Or, since the Source is a fork you control, consider adding an "install" target to the Makefile and just doing %make_install.
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #2) > > Source0: https://github.com/gtwilliams/deal/blob/master/deal-3.1.9.tar.gz > This URL fetches the latest commit from master and simply names the file > "deal-3.1.9.tar.gz". Noted and fixed. > > %global debug_package %{nil} > No-go. We want debuginfo in Fedora. I think I have this fixed. > Looking at the repo, you overwrite CPPLAGS in the Makefile with "CPPFLAGS = > -O3 -fPIE" > You can try the following instead: > 1. Call "%set_build_flags" at the start of %build to set Fedora's > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS > 2. Use "+=" in the Makefile to append -fPIE instead of overwriting I chose the second; also added required -g in the same change. > > mkdir -p %{build_data}/input > > mkdir -p %{build_data}/format > > mkdir -p %{build_data}/lib > > mkdir -p %{build_data}/ex > > mkdir -p %{build_docs}/html > > mkdir -p %{build_docs}/graphics > > ... > > install -p -m 0644 input/* %{build_data}/input > > install -p -m 0644 format/* %{build_data}/format > > install -p -m 0644 lib/* %{build_data}/lib > > install -p -m 0644 ex/* %{build_data}/ex > > install -p -m 0644 docs/html/*.* %{build_docs}/html > > install -p -m 0644 docs/graphics/* %{build_docs}/graphics > Could you use "cp -a" here instead? Or, since the Source is a fork you > control, > consider adding an "install" target to the Makefile and just doing > %make_install. Understood. Since the original author didn't design an install target, I am choosing to leave the crude Makefile as is and I simplified the %install section as you suggested, using cp -a. Thank you for your review.
> > You can try the following instead: > > 1. Call "%set_build_flags" at the start of %build to set Fedora's > > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS > > 2. Use "+=" in the Makefile to append -fPIE instead of overwriting > I chose the second; also added required -g in the same change. Sorry, my wording was confusing here. Those aren't exclusive options, but rather two steps to a single solution.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/master/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7215/81247215/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #4) > > > You can try the following instead: > > > 1. Call "%set_build_flags" at the start of %build to set Fedora's > > > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS > > > 2. Use "+=" in the Makefile to append -fPIE instead of overwriting > > I chose the second; also added required -g in the same change. > > Sorry, my wording was confusing here. Those aren't exclusive options, but > rather two steps to a single solution. Yeah, now that I read again what you wrote, I see. This was useful. Adding Fedora's flags uncovered two (benign) -Wunused-but-set-variable warnings that I just fixed.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.9/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/1639/81261639/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm I updated URL and Source0 to comply with Guidelines. rpmlint is clean on spec file, srpm file, and rpm file. But I get errors I do not understand when running rpmlint on debuginfo and debugsource files: deal-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.x86_64.debug deal-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.x86_64.debug deal-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation deal-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/b4/6d03ec2331ae91c963f3231b691fb3949f07aa ../../../.build-id/b4/6d03ec2331ae91c963f3231b691fb3949f07aa 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s deal-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation deal-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/deal-3.1.9-1.fc35.x86_64/getopt.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.9/deal.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3966/81413966/deal-3.1.9-2.fc35.src.rpm I updated the HTML-based documentation. The original source would not display properly in a browser. To fix this, I exported the original Web site (https://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deal) and overwrote the docs/html tree in the source. The original source was supposed to be this copy of the Web site, but it was messed up in various ways. Now the documentation displays correctly with this URL: file:///usr/share/doc/deal/html/index.html . I updated the manual page to include the URL in the SEE ALSO section.
Garry, can you please build the package locally (using either rpmbuild or mock) and upload it somewhere? koji holds the results of scratch builds only for a short time and the SRPM link is now 404.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03531025-deal/deal-3.1.11-1.fc35.src.rpm RPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03531025-deal/deal-3.1.11-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm Updated deal program to leave CWD alone and not depend on its value. Now the installation directory path is known to the deal program so that the TCL files can be located. The program "knows" certain paths to be in the installation directory. This is an improvement over the original design that depended on the build directory being the PWD at execution time. Now project is in a copr, so it should be available without expiring.
From the build log: > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o hand.o hand.c > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o tcl_dds.o tcl_dds.c > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o dealtypes.o dealtypes.c > ... Fedora's CFLAGS are not applied here. Looking at the Makefile, it overwrites CFLAGS in line 39. CPPFLAGS are also overwritten in Make.fedora on line 5. > cp -a docs/html %{build_docs}/ > ... > %files > %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/ You don't need to copy the files manually. If you use a relative path with %doc, the build process will take the file from the build directory and copy it to the buildroot for you. > cp -a GPL %{build_docs} > ... > %files > %license %{_docdir}/%{name}/GPL The same for %license. > %build > %set_build_flags I know it was me who suggested this a month ago, but - setting the build flags manually is no longer needed. Starting with Fedora 36, this will be done automatically. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
> > %build > > %set_build_flags > I know it was me who suggested this a month ago, but - setting the build > flags manually > is no longer needed. Starting with Fedora 36, this will be done > automatically. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck Isn't this still necessary for Fedoras < 36?
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03531399-deal/deal-3.1.11-2.fc35.src.rpm (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #10) > From the build log: > > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o hand.o hand.c > > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o tcl_dds.o tcl_dds.c > > gcc -ansi -Wall -O3 -fPIE -g -I/usr/include/tcl -c -o dealtypes.o dealtypes.c > > ... > Fedora's CFLAGS are not applied here. Looking at the Makefile, it overwrites > CFLAGS in line 39. > CPPFLAGS are also overwritten in Make.fedora on line 5. Fixed. > > cp -a docs/html %{build_docs}/ > > ... > > %files > > %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/ > You don't need to copy the files manually. If you use a relative path with > %doc, > the build process will take the file from the build directory and copy it > to the buildroot for you. > > > cp -a GPL %{build_docs} > > ... > > %files > > %license %{_docdir}/%{name}/GPL > The same for %license. I cannot get the build to copy the files here. I removed the cp commands and the result is no files in /usr/share/doc/deal. > > %build > > %set_build_flags > I know it was me who suggested this a month ago, but - setting the build > flags manually > is no longer needed. Starting with Fedora 36, this will be done > automatically. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck OK, but this still is required for now. I can remove the %set_build_flags when I later build for F36.
> I cannot get the build to copy the files here. > I removed the cp commands and the result is no files in /usr/share/doc/deal. So you're copying the files as follows: > cp -a docs/html %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} Try removing the cp call and replacing > %doc %{_docdir}/%{name} with > %doc docs/html For the license file, since you're using > cp -a GPL [...] that would become just > %license GPL
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03532445-deal/deal-3.1.11-3.fc35.src.rpm (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #13) > > I cannot get the build to copy the files here. > > I removed the cp commands and the result is no files in /usr/share/doc/deal. > So you're copying the files as follows: > > cp -a docs/html %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} > Try removing the cp call and replacing > > %doc %{_docdir}/%{name} > with > > %doc docs/html Nice. Now I get it. Thank you.
There are some files subject to different licenses: - ansidecl.h This file is subject to GPL1.0 or later. - getopt.h, getopt.c These two files are subject to LGPL2 or later. - random.c This file is subject to the BSD license. Hence the License tag on the package should be: "GPLv2+ and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD". (Unless I missed something.) getopt files are copied from the glibc, so it should be safe to remove them and rely on getopt.h as provided by the distribution.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03533491-deal/deal-3.1.11-4.fc35.src.rpm (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #15) > There are some files subject to different licenses: > - ansidecl.h > This file is subject to GPL1.0 or later. > - getopt.h, getopt.c > These two files are subject to LGPL2 or later. > - random.c > This file is subject to the BSD license. > Hence the License tag on the package should be: "GPLv2+ and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ > and BSD". > (Unless I missed something.) Fixed. > getopt files are copied from the glibc, so it should be safe to remove them > and rely on getopt.h as provided by the distribution. I am not sure why the original author did this, but you are correct. I removed the private files and now the standard C library getopt() is being called. (This removes any reference to LGPL, to the license tag now omits that altogether.)
> License: GPLv2+ and GPL+ and BSD This should be accompanied by a comment explaining which parts are subject to which licences. > for f in %{build_docs}/html/ex/*.txt; do \ The docs directory is empty at this point, resulting in %{_datadir}/%{name}/ex/ containing only a single, broken symlink named "*.tcl", pointing to "../../doc/deal/html/ex/*.txt". I guess in this case it makes sense to copy stuff to %{_docdir}/%{name} manually (as you did before), rather than relying on the %doc magic.
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #17) > > License: GPLv2+ and GPL+ and BSD > This should be accompanied by a comment explaining which parts are subject > to which licences. Fixed. > > for f in %{build_docs}/html/ex/*.txt; do \ > The docs directory is empty at this point, resulting in > %{_datadir}/%{name}/ex/ > containing only a single, broken symlink named "*.tcl", pointing to > "../../doc/deal/html/ex/*.txt". > > I guess in this case it makes sense to copy stuff to %{_docdir}/%{name} > manually (as you did before), > rather than relying on the %doc magic. Yikes! I didn't notice that. (I even installed the updated RPM and tested. But I never tested any of the ex/* libraries.) Would %post be appropriate to add symlinks after the doc files are installed? If not, I'll add the explicit copy command back and delete the %doc.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03577216-deal/deal-3.1.11-5.fc35.src.rpm OK, I see that creating symlinks in %post is complicated by upgrade (have to remove before create) and that removing them has to happen in %postun. It's much simpler to just explicitly copy files in %build. I've done that in the -5 version above.
Looks good, though there's one bit that I'm still thinking about. The packaging guidelines say: > Files located in %_pkgdocdir must not affect the runtime of the packaged software. > The software must function properly and with unchanged functionality if those files are modified, removed or not installed at all. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation The files in %{_datadir}/%{name}/ex/ are symlinks to files in %{_pkgdocdir}/html/ex/, which violates this rule - if the files in %{_pkgdocdir} are deleted, the symlinks will become broken (dangling). I suppose we could comply with the guidelines by flipping the files, i.e. making those in %{_pkgdocdir} symlinks to those in %{_datadir}/%{name}: > for f in %{build_docs}/html/ex/*.txt; do \ > ( \ > DESTINATION="%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/ex/$(basename "${f}" .txt).tcl"; \ > mv "$f" "$DESTINATION"; \ > ln -sr "$DESTINATION" "$f"; \ > ) \ > done
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03577445-deal/deal-3.1.11-6.fc35.src.rpm > Looks good, though there's one bit that I'm still thinking about. > The packaging guidelines say: > > Files located in %_pkgdocdir must not affect the runtime of the > > packaged software. The software must function properly and with > > unchanged functionality if those files are modified, removed or > > not installed at all. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation It's good that you were worried about this. Actually the contents of docs/html/ex and ex are not completely duplicated. So I should have just de-duped based on the original author's files in both directories. My code is wrong to begin with. :-( So following the guidelines, I am now just copying both directories in %install and then de-duping, with a symlink, any files that are duplicated, making %{_datadir}/ex the actual files and installing symlinks over any duplicated files in %{_docdir}/html/ex. After this change, both directories contain exactly what the original author intended.
Oops. I said it wrong above: "%{_datadir}/ex" should be "%{_datadir}/%{name}/ex" and "%{_docdir}/html/ex" should be "%{_docdir}/%{name}/html/ex". The good news is that it's correct in the code.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gtwilliams/deal/v3.1.11/deal.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gtwilliams/deal/fedora-35-x86_64/03577597-deal/deal-3.1.11-6.fc35.src.rpm (Cosmetic change.)
Some small issues: > Requires: tcl This is not needed, rpmbuild will pick up the fact that /usr/bin/deal links to libtcl8.6.so, and will generate a Requires automagically. > deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise -> practice, praise Self-explanatory. > if [ -f %{build_docs}/html/ex/$(basename $f .tcl).txt ] && \ > cmp $f %{build_docs}/html/ex/$(basename $f .tcl).txt ; then \ > ln -fs ../../../../%{name}/ex/$(basename $f) $(basename $f .tcl).txt ; \ You could avoid the repeated calls to basename by putting the result in some variable. Still, these are quite minor, so - PACKAGE APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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. [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. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 358400 bytes in 34 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: Link to successful scratch build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83415861 [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: deal-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm deal-debuginfo-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm deal-debugsource-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm deal-3.1.11-6.fc37.src.rpm deal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise -> practice, praise deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pbn -> pen, pin, pan deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise -> practice, praise 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: deal-debuginfo-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gtwilliams/deal/archive/v3.1.11/deal-3.1.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d0c785ad2076a603086122160259f7f059e42d245b8b066b389e850f8188ebae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0c785ad2076a603086122160259f7f059e42d245b8b066b389e850f8188ebae Requires -------- deal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tcl deal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): deal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- deal: deal deal(x86-64) deal-debuginfo: deal-debuginfo deal-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) deal-debugsource: deal-debugsource deal-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2040118 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I will sponsor.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deal
FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9
FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-06d223e0e9 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.