Remove %dnl lines which are not needed in SPEC file. This will simplify SPEC file and reviewers can easily read it.

removed %dnl lines from spec as suggested by @panemade

It is not needed to set needinfo? flag when you comment and mention my email. I am already subscribed to this review bug so I get notifications in my email account. Don't raise needinfo? flag and mention email in comment.

This font was in wishlist of Fedora Fonts SIG https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mukti_narrow_fonts

If you are new RPM packager and want to package some software in Fedora then
you will need Sponsorship for your package. To get sponsor for your package
in packager group, please follow these things.

Make sure you have followed steps given on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
till "Get Sponsored" section.

We have this process, 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/ to 
get sponsored into the packager group. When you submit your first submission,
it will be good if you either submit few more packages and/or do some full detailed
package reviews. This is needed to make sure package submitter understands the
rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging guidelines.
Check more on this at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/

Please go through the following links
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

2) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

3) To find the packages already submitted for review,
   check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

4) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ and
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful 
   while doing package reviews.

5) https://pagure.io/FedoraReview this is fedora-review tool to help
   review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package 
   reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention 
   "This is un-official review of the package." at top of your review comment.

Good to review packages listed in https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html or https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/needsponsor.html


When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment 
link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages. An example
command to run fedora-review on any package review bugzilla is

fedora-review -b <bugid> -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

If you got any questions please do ask here.

Review of your package submission.
1) Your package SPEC file name and SRPM name should be matching.
   Your SRPM name is fbf-mukti-fonts which is correct but SPEC file is fonts-mukti so fix this

2) I see un-necessary global definition of fontfamily
   %global  fontfamily mukti
   you already defined this as fontfamily0

3) Font license should be from Fedora approved license list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
   You wrote "GPl3+FontException" which is not correct.
   Correct way to write license tag is "GPLv3+ with exceptions"

4) For single font family packaging you can drop "0" suffix from
   fontfamily0, fontsummary0, fonts0, fontconfs0, fontdescription0 variables

5) You don't need to pass any argument to macro %fontpkg

6) I have not seen anyone using %sourcelist for any font packaging so drop it

7) I don't know why you added below line in your spec file. I don't think its needed.
%foundry-%fontfamily-fonts-%version.tar.gz

8) You can take an example of how already some font has been packaged. Let's take madan-fonts as an example.
   See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/madan-fonts/

9) Your each %changelog entry should add "-<release>"
   so your last entry should have been
   * Fri Jan 28 2022 21:42:16 +0530  Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban.in> -  3.0.1-1

Fix the above issues and update Release: to 2 and add relevant new changelog entry.
During review whenever you fix your SPEC file, you should update release tag
and add changelog entry and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links again.

@panemade
 Thanks for your review. I will make necessary correction as suggested and revert.

Spec URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-2.src.rpm
Description: <This is a one of the earliest Open Source OpenType Bengali / Bangla font It was made by using good quality glyphs of GPLed font bng2-n from Cyberscape Multimedia 
<https://web.archive.org/web/20021113130716/http://www.akruti.com/freedom/>. It was made for Mukta Bangla Font project.>
Fedora Account System Username:mitradranirban
Changes suggested by reviewer but could not be done as making such change leads to failure to build 
1. %global fontfamily mukti must be declared before %global licences otherwise rpmbuild fails - telling fbf-fontfamily-fonts-3.0.1 directory not fount 
2. %sourcelist must be followed by %foundry-%fontfamily-fonts-%version.tar.gz - otherwise build fails telling source0 not found while doing local build 

As suggested by reviewer, I am trying some unofficial review using fedora-review tool

1) When I installed SRPM, I got SPEC file as fbf-mukti-fonts2.spec , You must use same spec filename that is fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
2) Your spec file is still contain many empty lines. I suggested to read https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/madan-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/madan-fonts.spec and write SPEC file like that
3) You have not dropped 0 suffix completely. Still I see fontconfs0 and fontdescription0
4) I still unable to find a single example package in Fedora that uses %sourcelist macro. 
   You need to define Source0: and extract this source properly in %prep as
   %setup -n fonts-%{fontfamily}-%{version}

You don't need to provide Description everytime you provide updated SPEC and SRPM files.

Build 3 
This time build from sfd source as mandated by GPLv3 
SPEC URL; https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/blob/main/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-3.src.rpm

1) The links you gave are not raw file links. The way to share files are to give raw links.
   so for your package it will be
   
   SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/main/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
   SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/main/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-3.src.rpm

2) You still not following the way generally people write their font SPEC files.
   Remove empty lines.
   Source lines though can be written at top but good to write them just before %fontpkg

   You Must read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_annotated_spec_template

3) I still don't understand why you need %sourcelist, No Package in Fedora uses it.

4) You should write changelog entries by adding one empty line between entries. It will make it more readable.
   See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

5) You wrote 
   %global fontsummary      Popular GPLed Bengali OpenType  font 

   This should match with this bug's title where you added "Bangla open source Opentype font"
   Decide which one you like to write and use same at these both places.

6) You don't need Source1: line
   the way to write fontconfs is
   %global fontconfs  65-0-%{fontpkgname}.conf

7) You should not use 65-0 priority for this font. Its for default font in Fedora which is Lohit Bengali.
   you can use 66 or 67.

8) your fontconfig file is wrong and not as per the way its supposed to be written.
   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_fontconfig
  
9) Also, run "rpmlint" command on SRPM and binary RPMS and check if there are any warnings or errors
   that need to be fixed as well. I will guide on that once your other packaging issues get fixed.

As I have been asked to submit more review requests to indicate I understand the packaging process, I have already proposed to pack another of my fonts uniol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295. 
Two of my Bangla fonts Ani and Mukti are also in the pipe line for submission.

About new build of fbf-fonts-mukti, after changing the fontconfig file, build fails with message 
<code>
~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-4.x86_64/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf:2: validity error : Validation failed: no DTD found !
<fontconfig>
           ^
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ag61S3 (%check)
</code>

Try using second line in your conf file as
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "urn:fontconfig:fonts.dtd">

Use forge macros also here.
Read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control

Build 4- 
SPEC URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.1-4.src.rpm

copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/build/3300165/

Thanks for help with fontconfig - however  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_fontconfig says it wrongly, thats why I got mislead 

I inserted %forgeurl and %forgemeta but could not setup %forgesource or %forgeset, so leaving them as it was.

Ah, this is not the way any software upstream should do. You need to maintain proper commits.
I request to first commit your font development related files in upstream. Tag them for initial release.
Release tarball and use it for Fedora packaging.

e.g. See this font project https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/tree/main
how they are maintaining their development history.
Then see how when they want to release they are tagging 
https://gitlab.com/rit-fonts/MeeraNew/-/tags


At least I will ask for proper tarball release. You are keep updating tarball for every fix I suggested.
Remember once your package is in Fedora and you need to fix minor thing and you do the same thing, its problem in Fedora.
Fedora packaging store sha512sum of your tarball and it MUST be same whenever someone verifies it.
Once released tarball, any fix you should bump the tarball version and release it.

I really think you should take some time to learn how to host a project and release a tarball.

If the forge macros are not working for you then you can use https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services
but again you need to provide git commit id or tag.

Actually font naming conventions are vastly different in Debian/ ubuntu and Fedora.
My main upstream https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti in named after Debian convention.
It is maintained as per release version schedule and every minor change is leading to a change in version tag.
 
However for Fedora, the fontpackage name had to be changed to fbf-mukti-fonts. so I had to make a new repository for fedora related files. The main content of the package *.sfd files are remaining unchanged, only change is in spec and fontconfig files which are different in debian land

Okay. Let's take upstream as https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti
Then it will be easy to package in Fedora.

1) Use URL as
%global forgeurl https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti

2)You still have wrong license tag. Use correct as
%global fontlicense       GPLv3+ with exceptions

3) Use as 3rd line in your spec file
%global tag v3.0.1

4) then
Source0:  %{forgesource}

5) Change
%setup -q -n %{foundry}-%{fontfamily}-fonts-%{version} 
to
%forgesetup

6)Remember common things to package are written together. For this package you should write

%global foundry        fbf
%global fontlicense    GPLv3+ with exceptions
%global fontlicenses   LICENCE.txt
%global fontdocs       *.txt
%global fontdocsex     %{fontlicenses}

7) Then we write per family information. For this package you should write
%global fontfamily     mukti
%global fontsummary    Bangla open source Opentype font
%global fonts          *.otf
%global fontconfs      66-0-%{fontpkgname}.conf

8) Remaining SPEC sections are also written together. You should write
%prep
%forgesetup
chmod 755 generate.pe
./generate.pe *.sfd

%build
%fontbuild

%install
%fontinstall

%check
%fontcheck

I removed forgemeta macro and did is alternate way by referencing to upstream and it built well in copr 

SPEC FILE : https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-35-x86_64/03329415-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec 
SRPM FILE : https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-35-x86_64/03329415-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm 

I feel this way this is much easier after I update the upstream. I just have to change the commit hash, gittag and version and rest is automatic.

If upstream follows correct way of development, tagging and release then forge macros are also very much simpler.

1) The way we write tag is just tagged value not complete "refs/tags/v3.0.2".
   But this is optional as you are using commit hash way to fetch upstream tarball from github.

2) You need to write Source0 as
Source0:  https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

3) It appears as suggested in my previous comment, you have not fixed license tag. Use
%global fontlicense       GPLv3+ with exceptions

4) Also when you write SPEC file, Good to use empty characters are space character not tabs to separate two consecutive words.
Currently it seems you got
fbf-mukti-fonts.spec:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 20)

5) and yes you don't need Source1: you already have generate.pe packaged in tarball.

The tarball does not contain fontconfig file. There is error in building if I omit Source1
However builds ok using forge source  if Source1 provides the fontconfig 
SPEC: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SPECS/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM: https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SRPMS/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-3.fc34.src.rpm

$ rpmlint fbf-mukti-fonts.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-3.fc34.src.rpm 
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bangla -> Bangle, Bang la, Bang-la
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
fbf-mukti-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akruti -> rutting
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

you forgot to re-set the release tag to "1" when you change the version number.
your srpm should be fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm

fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm was bult using commit system (see comment #19)
This time (comment #22) I rebuild from the same source using forgemeta macro

I checked changelog entries in your comment#22 submission.
Please add back relevant changelog for releases 3.0.2-1 and 3.0.2-2
you went from 3.0.1-4 to 3.0.2-3 in your comment#22 submission.

Added back mistakenly deleted changelog entries of builds 3.0.2-1 and 3.0.2-2
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03338897-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03338897-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-3.fc36.src.rpm

You got wrong syntax for disttag.
You need to use
Release:   3%{?dist}

Corrected disttag 
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03359853-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03359853-fbf-mukti-fonts/fbf-mukti-fonts-3.0.2-4.fc36.src.rpm

 

this is the output i got with fedora-review -p -n fbf-mukti-fonts 

https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/review.txt

I have submitted review for 2 more fonts 
Ani https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879
and 
MitraMono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859

Hope this time there will be less errors

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Suggestions:
1) Good if you remove empty lines in 66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf file.


===== 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", "GNU General Public License", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Free
     Documentation License v1.2 or later". 18 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2048456-fbf-mukti-
     fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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
-------
==================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ====================


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SOURCES/66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/v3.0.2/fonts-mukti-3.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a


Requires
--------
fbf-mukti-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fontpackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
fbf-mukti-fonts:
    fbf-mukti-fonts
    font(mukti)
    font(মুক্তি)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-mukti-fonts.metainfo.xml)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2048456 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, Java, C/C++, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

APPROVED this package.

Thank you very much Parag for teaching me proper RPM packaging. I learned a lot interacting with you.

I decided to sponsor you now as other 2 package review may take some time.
Can you please login to https://src.fedoraproject.org and then logout to refresh your account status?

The next process is described here -> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#add_package_to_source_code_management_scm_system_and_set_owner
1) Once you login and logout
2) you need to run this command in your terminal
fedpkg request-repo fbf-mukti-fonts 2048456
then
fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f36
fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f35
fedpkg request-branch --repo fbf-mukti-fonts f34

When you run these commands, you will get in return ticket URL's which you can track.
These tickets will get resolved in 24-48 hrs

Then proceed with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#check_out_the_module

Do let me know if you got any questions.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbf-mukti-fonts

FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea

FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba

FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba 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-e6f3e3c4ba \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-e6f3e3c4ba has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-abd3307aea has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.