Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20240614gitb4d82a6.fc39/envision-0.1.0-1.20240614gitb4d82a6.fc40.src.rpm Description: UI for building, configuring, and running Monado, the open source OpenXR runtime. This is still highly experimental software, while it's unlikely that anything bad will happen, it's still unstable and there is no guarantee that it will work on your system, with your particular hardware. If you encounter any problems while using the app, make sure to open an issue. Also consider that due to the unstable nature of the app, it's possible to encounter unexpected behavior that while in VR might cause motion sickness or physical injury. Be very careful while in VR using this app! Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7617791 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07617791-envision/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.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20240703git6cf5e40.fc39/envision-0.1.0-1.20240703git6cf5e40.fc40.src.rpm Update to latest.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20240720gite58e813.fc39/envision-0.1.0-1.20240720gite58e813.fc40.src.rpm Update to latest.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7767602 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07767602-envision/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.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20240725git33d906f.fc39/envision-0.1.0-1.20240725git33d906f.fc40.src.rpm Updated to 33d906f50d57f20afadaa248b58700541d86d2f4 which is going to be the farthest we can go for right now. Upstream has forked openxrs to add a patch and implement a new feature. The patch has been accepted upstream and should flow through the crate in a future update. Upstream has also upgraded the GTK stack so this will be the final update for initial import before we coordinate an upgrade of the GTK rust stack in Fedora.
Created attachment 2040593 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7767602 to 7794726
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7794726 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07794726-envision/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.
Envision now requires updates to a handful of dependencies that have already been imported or are under review. The packages already added (this bug depends on) are the compatible versions for the existing package ecosystem in Fedora. I'll pick off any of these upgrades that can be updated standalone. Otherwise, we'll need to wait for a larger ecosystem update. # Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(git2/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(git2/default) < 0.20.0~) # Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(gtk4/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(gtk4/default) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 3: nothing provides requested (crate(gtk4/v4_10) >= 0.9.0 with crate(gtk4/v4_10) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 4: nothing provides requested (crate(libadwaita/default) >= 0.7.0 with crate(libadwaita/default) < 0.8.0~) # Problem 5: nothing provides requested (crate(libadwaita/v1_5) >= 0.7.0 with crate(libadwaita/v1_5) < 0.8.0~) # Problem 6: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4-components/default) >= 0.9.1 with crate(relm4-components/default) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 7: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(relm4/default) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 8: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4/libadwaita) >= 0.9.0 with crate(relm4/libadwaita) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 9: nothing provides requested (crate(vte4/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(vte4/default) < 0.9.0~) # Problem 10: nothing provides requested (crate(vte4/v0_72) >= 0.8.0 with crate(vte4/v0_72) < 0.9.0~)
With the updated gtk stack, we are now at: # Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(git2/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(git2/default) < 0.20.0~) PRs added for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2292306 but there are other compatibility issues to address for this upgrade. # Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4-components/default) >= 0.9.1 with crate(relm4-components/default) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 3: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(relm4/default) < 0.10.0~) # Problem 4: nothing provides requested (crate(relm4/libadwaita) >= 0.9.0 with crate(relm4/libadwaita) < 0.10.0~) Pending update to the relm4 versions post-review of the new relm4 packages. I'm planning on completing the existing packages and then issuing an update. # Problem 5: nothing provides requested (crate(tokio/default) >= 1.39.3 with crate(tokio/default) < 2.0.0~) # Problem 6: nothing provides requested (crate(tokio/process) >= 1.39.3 with crate(tokio/process) < 2.0.0~) Pending update to existing package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2306097
Why are we bundling libmonado-rs here?
I chose to bundle based on the current development phase of this library. It would be more ideal if that upstream was in crates.io and then I'd be fine making it a package (i.e. it's versioned and released.)
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20241013gitc3eb514.fc40/envision-0.1.0-1.20241013gitc3eb514.fc42.src.rpm Unbundles libmonado. Review submitted.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.1.0-1.20241027git91f61e5.fc40/envision-0.1.0-1.20241027git91f61e5.fc42.src.rpm Okay, we finally have the rust stack in a place where Envision is ready to be imported. :-) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125369766
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8190795 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08190795-envision/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ 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://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc40/envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.src.rpm Changelog: * Add two new packages to the dependency chain :-/ * Use upstream tagging for release tracking
Created attachment 2055372 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8190795 to 8205845
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8205845 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08205845-envision/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.
Taking this review. > License: AGPL-3.0-only This doesn't look right. Because this is a binary package, you need to put the combined license here (the union of what is printed at the end of the build, and add what is printed at the end of the build as a comment before that). > BuildRequires: g++ Given that Envision is used to compile stuff, shouldn't a bunch of these also be Recommends (or possibly Requires, depending on whether Envision is still usable if they're missing or not) ? > %doc meson_options.txt This isn't a doc > %{_datarootdir}/envision nit: put a slash at the end to make it clear it's a directory > %{_datarootdir}/applications/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.desktop > %{_datarootdir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.svg > %{_datarootdir}/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/org.gabmus.envision.Devel-symbolic.svg > %{_datarootdir}/metainfo/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.appdata.xml The "Devel" in there is suspicious, usually it's added when doing CI/test builds, not for release builds. Can you double check that we aren't missing some build flag or something to make it do a release build?
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #18) > Given that Envision is used to compile stuff, shouldn't a bunch of these > also be Recommends (or possibly Requires, depending on whether Envision is > still usable if they're missing or not) ? Envision has a feature that manages this. I thought about adding things as Requires in subpackages, but Envision checks dependencies itself and offers commands for installing the dependencies cross-distro. What I have included as BRs is for building just Envision itself. > > %{_datarootdir}/applications/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.desktop > > %{_datarootdir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.svg > > %{_datarootdir}/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps/org.gabmus.envision.Devel-symbolic.svg > > %{_datarootdir}/metainfo/org.gabmus.envision.Devel.appdata.xml > > The "Devel" in there is suspicious, usually it's added when doing CI/test > builds, not for release builds. Can you double check that we aren't missing > some build flag or something to make it do a release build? Looks like I'm going to have to patch meson.build to fix this up. The switch to add Devel is based on running git commands. I'll work on something and send it upstream.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc40/envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.src.rpm Changelog: * Add patch to disable buggy meson configuration, bug opened upstream * Update license data
Created attachment 2055853 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8205845 to 8218605
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8218605 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292541-envision/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08218605-envision/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/envision/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. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps [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. [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2786 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.x86_64.rpm envision-debuginfo-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.x86_64.rpm envision-debugsource-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.x86_64.rpm envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.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/tmppyw93zpw')] checks: 32, packages: 4 envision.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: envision-0.0.2-no-devel-profile.patch envision.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary envision 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: envision-debuginfo-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42.x86_64.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/tmp62okn927')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "envision-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "envision". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "envision-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/gabmus/envision/-/archive/0.0.2/envision-0.0.2.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19daa0e1e8f5f1fe7500b5ede0c5a5e890d616cf47d91f170a293dbdd5c8c4e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19daa0e1e8f5f1fe7500b5ede0c5a5e890d616cf47d91f170a293dbdd5c8c4e4 Requires -------- envision (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenxr_loader.so.1()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libssh2.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libvte-2.91-gtk4.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) envision-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): envision-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- envision: application() application(org.gabmus.envision.desktop) envision envision(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.gabmus.envision.appdata.xml) envision-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) envision-debuginfo envision-debuginfo(x86-64) envision-debugsource: envision-debugsource envision-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name envision --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, fonts, PHP, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
For [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/symbolic, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps you need to add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme -- please fix this on import. Everything else looks good, so it's APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/envision
FEDORA-2024-abcab9958c (envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-abcab9958c
FEDORA-2024-abcab9958c (envision-0.0.2-1.20241102git0.0.2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.