Spec URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/isa-l.spec SRPM URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/isa-l-2.30.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Collection of low-level functions used in storage applications. Contains fast erasure codes that implement a general Reed-Solomon type encoding for blocks of data that helps protect against erasure of whole blocks. The general ISA-L library contains an expanded set of functions used for data protection, hashing, encryption, etc. Fedora Account System Username: ellert
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6626808 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249268-isa-l/srpm-builds/06626808/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Scratch build in koji works: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108945571
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2249268-isa-l/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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [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 23896 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: isa-l-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-devel-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-tools-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-debugsource-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-2.30.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsv3hs0lc')] checks: 31, packages: 6 isa-l.aarch64: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libisal.so.2.0.30 isa-l.aarch64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: isa-l-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-tools-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppqh33vac')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6 isa-l.aarch64: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libisal.so.2.0.30 isa-l.aarch64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/isa-l/archive/refs/tags/v2.30.0/isa-l-2.30.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bcf592c04fdfa19e723d2adf53d3e0f4efd5b956bb618fed54a1108d76a6eb56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bcf592c04fdfa19e723d2adf53d3e0f4efd5b956bb618fed54a1108d76a6eb56 Requires -------- isa-l (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) isa-l-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config isa-l(aarch-64) libisal.so.2()(64bit) isa-l-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): isa-l(aarch-64) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libisal.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) isa-l-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): isa-l-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- isa-l: isa-l isa-l(aarch-64) libisal.so.2()(64bit) isa-l-devel: isa-l-devel isa-l-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(libisal) isa-l-tools: isa-l-tools isa-l-tools(aarch-64) isa-l-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) isa-l-debuginfo isa-l-debuginfo(aarch-64) libisal.so.2.0.30-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) isa-l-debugsource: isa-l-debugsource isa-l-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2249268 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can the url be: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/isa-l-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags b) The line %ldconfig_scriptlets can be removed, not longer needed c) The first part of the soname should be included instead of %{_libdir}/libisal.so.* use %{_libdir}/libisal.so.2.* d) Can the s390x patch be upstreamed? e) Can -fpic or -pic be added to the flags? isa-l.aarch64: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libisal.so.2.0.30
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) Thank yu for the review! > a) Can the url be: > %{url}/archive/v%{version}/isa-l-%{version}.tar.gz > See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_git_tags Done. > b) The line > %ldconfig_scriptlets > can be removed, not longer needed Still needed for EPEL 7 > c) The first part of the soname should be included instead of > %{_libdir}/libisal.so.* > use > %{_libdir}/libisal.so.2.* Done (but without the . before *) > d) Can the s390x patch be upstreamed? The patch is a backport from upstream. I added a comment with a link. > e) Can -fpic or -pic be added to the flags? > isa-l.aarch64: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libisal.so.2.0.30 The build alredy uses -fPIC. This is due to assembler code. Fixed upsream. Added one more backport patch. Spec and srpm updated at the same locations.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2249268-isa-l/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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [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. [ ]: 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 23896 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: isa-l-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-devel-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-tools-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-debugsource-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-2.30.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzuf0p56m')] checks: 31, packages: 6 isa-l.aarch64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: isa-l-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm isa-l-tools-debuginfo-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgbjelstq')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6 isa-l.aarch64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/isa-l/archive/v2.30.0/isa-l-2.30.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bcf592c04fdfa19e723d2adf53d3e0f4efd5b956bb618fed54a1108d76a6eb56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bcf592c04fdfa19e723d2adf53d3e0f4efd5b956bb618fed54a1108d76a6eb56 Requires -------- isa-l (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) isa-l-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config isa-l(aarch-64) libisal.so.2()(64bit) isa-l-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): isa-l(aarch-64) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libisal.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) isa-l-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): isa-l-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- isa-l: isa-l isa-l(aarch-64) libisal.so.2()(64bit) isa-l-devel: isa-l-devel isa-l-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(libisal) isa-l-tools: isa-l-tools isa-l-tools(aarch-64) isa-l-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) isa-l-debuginfo isa-l-debuginfo(aarch-64) libisal.so.2.0.30-2.30.0-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) isa-l-debugsource: isa-l-debugsource isa-l-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2249268 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Perl, Python, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for the changes. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/isa-l
FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d72cb5a598 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d72cb5a598
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b58e7377ec has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b58e7377ec
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-83707d80ea 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-2023-83707d80ea See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d72cb5a598 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d72cb5a598 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b58e7377ec 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-2023-b58e7377ec See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-345d5777a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-345d5777a7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-345d5777a7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d72cb5a598 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-345d5777a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-6c25ba2997 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-83707d80ea has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b58e7377ec has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.