Spec URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc.spec SRPM URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc-0.15-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: An extension for IPA integration with Red Hat Hybrid Cloud Console Fedora Account System Username: cheimes Packages are also available in our COPR https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/podengo/ipa-hcc. The COPR builds are created from our GitHub repo with rpkg. The ipa-hcc-server sub-package provides FreeIPA plugins and LDAP schema extension for Hybrid Cloud Console integration. The plugin must be installed on all FreeIPA servers, preferable before the server/replica is installed. The package is usable on Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL. The ipa-hcc-client sub-package provide domain join on launch feature. It is currently disabled for Fedora, because it depends on Insights and rhc. The spec file is slightly convoluted. We want to support Fedora, EPEL 9, and EPEL 8 from the same spec file.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7186977 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270425-ipa-hcc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07186977-ipa-hcc/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc.spec SRPM URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc-0.15-1.fc39.src.rpm My initial message had "ipa-hcc-0.14-1.fc39.src.rpm" first. I replaced it immediately after noticing the outdated version. Automation still picked up the old version, though. The "%{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" issue looks like a false-positive. The spec file does not contain RPM_BUILD_ROOT. It is probably coming from a macro.
Created attachment 2022682 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7186977 to 7187219
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7187219 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270425-ipa-hcc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07187219-ipa-hcc/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc.spec SRPM URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc-0.15-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 2022700 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7187219 to 7187436
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7187436 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270425-ipa-hcc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07187436-ipa-hcc/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ipaserver, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/systemd, /etc/httpd/conf.d, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/install/plugins/__pycache__, /var/lib, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /var/cache, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/ipa/ui/js/plugins, /var, /usr/share/ipa/updates, /var/lib/gssproxy, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ipaserver/plugins, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/share/ipa/ui, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/ipa/ui/js, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/ipa/schema.d, /etc, /usr/share/licenses, /etc/httpd, /etc/ipa, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/plugins/__pycache__, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ipaserver/install, /usr/share/ipa, /etc/gssproxy, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ipaserver/install/plugins [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/systemd, /etc/httpd/conf.d, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/install/plugins/__pycache__, /var/lib, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /var/cache, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/ipa/ui/js/plugins, /var, /usr/share/ipa/updates, /var/lib/gssproxy, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ipaserver/plugins, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/share/ipa/ui, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/ipa/ui/js, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/ipa/schema.d, /etc, /usr/share/licenses, /etc/httpd, /etc/ipa, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/plugins/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/install, /usr/share/ipa, /etc/gssproxy, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/ipaserver/install/plugins [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [cheimes]: The Python package "ipahcc" is not designed to be consumed by users. It's purely present to support the "ipa-hcc" CLI tool, the registration agent, and FreeIPA plugins. [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [?]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ipa-hcc-server [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9329 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [X]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [?]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [cheimes] package builds in local mock and COPR's mocks [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [cheimes] make is only used to copy some files around. There is no point in using parallel builds. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [cheimes] Upstream project has COPYING file, which is included as license file [ ]: 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. [?]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [cheimes] package is noarch [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ipa-hcc-server-0.15-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ipa-hcc-0.15-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpvf_ct4sq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ipa-hcc-server.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/ipa/hcc ipahcc ipa-hcc-server.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ipa-hcc ipahcc ipa-hcc-server.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/ipa-hcc ipaapi ipa-hcc-server.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/ipa/hcc 750 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ipa-hcc-server". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/podengo-project/ipa-hcc/archive/refs/tags/ipa-hcc-0.15-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b291102baee56ebd539281e6af4140190d86942b419cf5970e14c332f94513af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b291102baee56ebd539281e6af4140190d86942b419cf5970e14c332f94513af Requires -------- ipa-hcc-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 config(ipa-hcc-server) freeipa-server httpd mod_ssl python(abi) python3.12dist(cryptography) python3.12dist(ipaclient) python3.12dist(jsonschema) python3.12dist(jwcrypto) python3.12dist(requests) selinux-policy systemd Provides -------- ipa-hcc-server: config(ipa-hcc-server) ipa-hcc-server python-ipahcc python3-ipahcc python3.12-ipahcc python3.12dist(ipahcc) python3dist(ipahcc) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ipa-hcc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Alexander has spotted to issues: - KDC must be restarted in postun scriplet - the /etc/ipa/hcc directory has a non-standard permission. The directory is not needed for ipa-hcc-server anyway. It's only required for internal testing package ipa-hcc-mockapi. I'll spin another build later.
Spec URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc.spec SRPM URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ipa-hcc/ipa-hcc-0.16-1.fc39.src.rpm The new release addressed the issues from comment #9.
Created attachment 2023861 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7187436 to 7221895
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7221895 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270425-ipa-hcc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07221895-ipa-hcc/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (reviewer: the COPYING file from the tarball is matching the License field) [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. (reviewer: there are strong dependencies to packages providing needed directories (ipa-server)) [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. (reviewer: there are 'rm -rf %buildroot/path/to/file' directives but they apply to specific files/directories only) [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 10291 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ipa-hcc-server [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ipa-hcc-server-0.16-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ipa-hcc-0.16-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmp5lcpu33u')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ipa-hcc-server.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/ipa-hcc ipahcc ipa-hcc-server.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/ipa-hcc ipaapi 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ipa-hcc-server". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/podengo-project/ipa-hcc/archive/refs/tags/ipa-hcc-0.16-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34c74704bf1a72581d704e6f2cfbb1b13def2df83f6a8ed773aea44c76f6ee45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34c74704bf1a72581d704e6f2cfbb1b13def2df83f6a8ed773aea44c76f6ee45 Requires -------- ipa-hcc-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 config(ipa-hcc-server) freeipa-server httpd mod_ssl python(abi) python3.12dist(cryptography) python3.12dist(ipaclient) python3.12dist(jsonschema) python3.12dist(jwcrypto) python3.12dist(requests) selinux-policy systemd Provides -------- ipa-hcc-server: config(ipa-hcc-server) ipa-hcc-server python-ipahcc python3-ipahcc python3.12-ipahcc python3.12dist(ipahcc) python3dist(ipahcc) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ipa-hcc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ipa-hcc
The package is in Rawhide. I'm doing F40, epel8, and epel9 next.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ce32158ddd (ipa-hcc-0.16-2.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ce32158ddd
FEDORA-2024-ba430825fe (ipa-hcc-0.16-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ba430825fe
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5ebeb77f67 (ipa-hcc-0.16-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5ebeb77f67
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5ebeb77f67 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-2024-5ebeb77f67 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-ce32158ddd 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-2024-ce32158ddd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-ba430825fe has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-ba430825fe \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ba430825fe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5ebeb77f67 (ipa-hcc-0.16-1.el9) 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-2024-ce32158ddd (ipa-hcc-0.16-2.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-69e321cb5a (ipa-hcc-0.17-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.