Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09023951-remontoire/remontoire.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09023951-remontoire/remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Remontoire is a small GTK app for presenting keybinding hints in a compact form suitable for tiling window environments. It is intended for use with the i3 window manager but it's also able to display keybindings from any suitably formatted config file. Fedora Account System Username: x3mboy This is my first package, so I need a sponsor to upload the package. I work closely with upstream [1] and I had introduced changes to comply with Fedora standards [2] [1] https://github.com/regolith-linux/remontoire [2] https://github.com/regolith-linux/remontoire/pull/18
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9081778 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368652-remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09081778-remontoire/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0'. 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: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09081798-remontoire/remontoire.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09081798-remontoire/remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2091642 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9081778 to 9081802
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9081802 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368652-remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09081802-remontoire/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: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09082030-remontoire/remontoire.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09082030-remontoire/remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.src.rpm Making changes as per comments by other packagers.
Created attachment 2091645 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9081802 to 9082032
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9082032 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368652-remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09082032-remontoire/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 Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/remontoire/2368652- remontoire/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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 ------- Checking: remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpags6z3ye')] checks: 32, packages: 2 remontoire.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog remontoire.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog remontoire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: no-documentation remontoire.spec: W: no-%check-section remontoire.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire remontoire.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.regolith-linux.remontoire.appdata.xml remontoire.src: E: description-line-too-long Remontoire is a small GTK app for presenting keybinding hints in a compact form suitable for tiling window environments. It is intended for use with the i3 window manager but it's also able to display keybindings from any suitably formatted config file. remontoire.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Remontoire is a small GTK app for presenting keybinding hints in a compact form suitable for tiling window environments. It is intended for use with the i3 window manager but it's also able to display keybindings from any suitably formatted config file. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings, 9 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remontoire-debuginfo-1.4.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc2sbpqt6')] checks: 32, packages: 1 remontoire-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 2 remontoire-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog remontoire.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog remontoire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: no-documentation remontoire.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire remontoire.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.regolith-linux.remontoire.appdata.xml remontoire.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Remontoire is a small GTK app for presenting keybinding hints in a compact form suitable for tiling window environments. It is intended for use with the i3 window manager but it's also able to display keybindings from any suitably formatted config file. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 10 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/regolith-linux/remontoire//archive/refs/tags/v1.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a54ebc08e6d4f63806df2dc0f88e4ef57433aa2d7712b36ddb788cc81c943016 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a54ebc08e6d4f63806df2dc0f88e4ef57433aa2d7712b36ddb788cc81c943016 Requires -------- remontoire (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- remontoire: application() application(org.regolith-linux.remontoire.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.regolith-linux.remontoire.appdata.xml) remontoire remontoire(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2368652 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, Ocaml, Java, fonts, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please wrap description at 80 characters b) Consider using download url as: Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/remontoire-%{version}.tar.gz or use %forgesource macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ c) Consider using %autorelease and %autochangelog macros remontoire.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog d) - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. remontoire.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.regolith-linux.remontoire.appdata.xml https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files e) Is it possible to run a smoke test, for example remontoire --version f) Is it possible to add an appdata file? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_appdata_files g) Is it possible to crate a manpage? h) The code seems to be under GPL-3.0-or-later https://github.com/regolith-linux/remontoire/blob/master/debian/copyright#L6-L16 Perhaps ask upstream to add a notice on every source file with this information, as well as in the README i) Consider packaging README.md as documentation
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-42-x86_64/09098633-remontoire/remontoire.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x3mboy/remontoire/fedora-42-x86_64/09098633-remontoire/remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc42.src.rpm I've covered comments from a to g, h and i I will manage it with upstream for next release. A public copy of the spec file and patch file is in my gitlab: https://gitlab.com/X3MBoy/specs/-/tree/main/remontoire
Created attachment 2092108 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9082032 to 9100142
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9100142 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2368652-remontoire/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100142-remontoire/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.
Any news here?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later and/or GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/remontoire/2368652- remontoire/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [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]: 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: 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 ------- Checking: remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm remontoire-1.4.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq3bv5i0k')] checks: 32, packages: 2 remontoire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: no-documentation remontoire.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remontoire-debuginfo-1.4.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpr6n9pi17')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2 remontoire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remontoire remontoire.x86_64: W: no-documentation remontoire.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Remontoire 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/regolith-linux/remontoire/archive/refs/tags/v1.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a54ebc08e6d4f63806df2dc0f88e4ef57433aa2d7712b36ddb788cc81c943016 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a54ebc08e6d4f63806df2dc0f88e4ef57433aa2d7712b36ddb788cc81c943016 Requires -------- remontoire (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- remontoire: application() application(org.regolith-linux.remontoire.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.regolith-linux.remontoire.appdata.xml) remontoire remontoire(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2368652 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change: Source0: %{url}archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/remontoire-%{version}.tar.gz or use %forgesource macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134595287 c) Change Summary: Remontoire app to show keybindings to Summary: App to show keybindings Please make changes (a) and (c) before import. Approved. If you would like me to sponsor, please do three mock reviews of packages and link them here. For example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279333 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374306