Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dfc.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: dfc is a tool to report file system space usage information. When the output is a terminal, it uses color and graphs by default. It has a lot of features such as HTML, JSON and CSV export, multiple filtering options, the ability to show mount options and so on. Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90540786
Unofficial review: 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]: 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/dfc/2116064-dfc/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [?]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 30720 bytes in 4 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rolinh/dfc/archive/v3.1.1/dfc-3.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cea18fab1f053eddc359530816712edd1f497c556035a7c4d63ac87a4abc4b28 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cea18fab1f053eddc359530816712edd1f497c556035a7c4d63ac87a4abc4b28 Requires -------- dfc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(dfc) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dfc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dfc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dfc: config(dfc) dfc dfc(x86-64) dfc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dfc-debuginfo dfc-debuginfo(x86-64) dfc-debugsource: dfc-debugsource dfc-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/dfc/2116064-dfc/srpm/dfc.spec 2022-08-07 13:15:52.231353185 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/dfc/2116064-dfc/srpm-unpacked/dfc.spec 2022-08-06 21:49:22.000000000 +0300 @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ License: BSD-3-Clause -URL: https://github.com/rolinh/%{name} +URL: https://github.com/rolinh/dfc Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2116064 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH $ rpmlint dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 11.8 s $ rpmlint dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s $ rpmlint dfc-debuginfo-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.debug dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.debug dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/95/df0776aea14dd68f01348713bd0632d6822646 ../../../.build-id/95/df0776aea14dd68f01348713bd0632d6822646 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s $ rpmlint dfc-debugsource-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation dfc-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Comments: a) The file https://github.com/rolinh/dfc/blob/master/cmake/modules/GettextTranslate.cmake seems to be available under BSD-2, perhaps query upstream if multiple licenses should be used or this should be updated? Related pull request https://github.com/rolinh/dfc/pull/32 b)
License issue and spec file mismatch fixed. Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dfc.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.src.rpm
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/dfc/2116064-dfc/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 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 30720 bytes in 4 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rolinh/dfc/archive/v3.1.1/dfc-3.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cea18fab1f053eddc359530816712edd1f497c556035a7c4d63ac87a4abc4b28 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cea18fab1f053eddc359530816712edd1f497c556035a7c4d63ac87a4abc4b28 Requires -------- dfc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(dfc) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dfc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dfc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): $ rpmlint dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause dfc.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 49.5 s ========= $ rpmlint dfc-debuginfo-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.debug dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.debug dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause dfc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/dc/b16443dde514418e951efc369d51043ef23836 ../../../.build-id/dc/b16443dde514418e951efc369d51043ef23836 ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========= $ rpmlint dfc-debugsource-3.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation dfc-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause dfc-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========= $ rpmlint dfc-3.1.1-1.fc37.src.rpm ========================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 dfc.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause dfc.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========= Comments: a) Licenses seem to be ok, warnings occur for other packages as well https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 b) Software is available in Dutch and French, but not sure how to test this. c) Otherwise seems good. Package approved.
I was about to review the package, but Benson has already taken it :) Just one observation: > %config(noreplace) /etc/xdg/%{name}/ Don't forget to change /etc to %{_sysconfdir} [1] 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#macros_installation
@xfgusta Thanks.
(In reply to Gustavo Costa from comment #5) > I was about to review the package, but Benson has already taken it :) > > Just one observation: > > > %config(noreplace) /etc/xdg/%{name}/ > > Don't forget to change /etc to %{_sysconfdir} [1] > > 1. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/ > #macros_installation Doh! I'll fix that. I have plenty of other reviews pending if you want to take one of them :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dfc
FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ec0054d282 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ec0054d282
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03c2930972 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03c2930972
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ec0054d282 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ec0054d282 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03c2930972 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03c2930972 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-888f8fba86 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-888f8fba86 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-888f8fba86 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-888f8fba86 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Canceling NEEDINFO.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ec0054d282 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03c2930972 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-90a59b1b58 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.