Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/raw/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-1.src.rpm Description: This package contains a Sphinx extension to link to external Doxygen API documentation. It allows you to specify C++ symbols and it will convert them into links to the HTML page of their Doxygen documentation. Fedora Account System Username: mzamazal Note: The primary purpose of having this package in Fedora is to be able to build new versions of libcamera packages, doxylink is a new libcamera build dependency from upstream.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9405396 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387853-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09405396-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/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.
The spec file is missing disttag and fails the review system: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2387853-pyth[…]contrib-doxylink/fedora-review/fedora-review.log.gz `Release: 1` should either be `Release: %autorelease` or `Release: 1%{dist}`
The Release problem fixed here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/raw/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-2.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103644 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9405396 to 9412839
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9412839 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387853-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09412839-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/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.
Macro-in-changelog problem fixed here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-3.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/raw/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-3.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103725 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9412839 to 9430685
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9430685 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387853-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09430685-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/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 Issues: ======= - Package is missing a dependency on python3-devel - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format `%{name}.spec`. Note: python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-3.spec should be python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming I see that the src.rpm alreay contains `python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink.spec` so I assume the issue is just in the naming of the file provided in the review request ===== 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: - "BSD 2-Clause License", - "Creative Commons CC0 1.0": upstream github dependabot file, not being installed. - "MIT License": upstream github actions file, not being installed. - 19 files have unknown license. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 This will be solved by requiring python3-devel [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/sphinxcontrib( python3-sphinxcontrib-devhelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-log-cabinet, python3-sphinxcontrib-qthelp, python3-sphinx, python3-sphinxcontrib-apidoc, python3-sphinxcontrib-websupport, python3-sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python3-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain, python3-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3-sphinxcontrib-jquery, python3-sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml, python3-sphinxcontrib-spelling) This can be safely ignored. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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 476 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-3.fc44.noarch.rpm python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-3.fc44.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/tmp3_zux9gg')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/doxylink/archive/refs/tags/1.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 047f8f4b9dbd104c004cfe24211af38b7a21fd707a103b214b6a5c5af3c4790c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 047f8f4b9dbd104c004cfe24211af38b7a21fd707a103b214b6a5c5af3c4790c Requires -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(pyparsing) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(pyparsing) >= 3.0.8) (python3.14dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.8.2) python(abi) python3-pyparsing python3-sphinx python3.14dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink: python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3.14-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3.14dist(sphinxcontrib-doxylink) python3dist(sphinxcontrib-doxylink) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2387853 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R, Java, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Other than the missing build requires on python3-devel and the spec file naming LGTM.
BuildRequires on python3-devel added. The spec file name numeric suffix was present only on the download site to differ versions of the file; I removed it to avoid confusion. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mz-pdm/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/raw/refs/heads/main/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-4.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2105007 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9430685 to 9496731
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9496731 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2387853-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09496731-python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink/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 ===== 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: - "BSD 2-Clause License", - "Creative Commons CC0 1.0": upstream github dependabot file, not being installed. - "MIT License": upstream github actions file, not being installed. - 19 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: - /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages - /usr/lib/python3.14 This can be ignored, those are provided by python3.14-libs which is in the dependency tree. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/sphinxcontrib( python3-sphinxcontrib-devhelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-log-cabinet, python3-sphinxcontrib-qthelp, python3-sphinx, python3-sphinxcontrib-apidoc, python3-sphinxcontrib-websupport, python3-sphinxcontrib-htmlhelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python3-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain, python3-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3-sphinxcontrib-jquery, python3-sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml, python3-sphinxcontrib-spelling) This can be ignored. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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 476 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-4.fc44.noarch.rpm python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink-1.13.0-4.fc44.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/tmpq2rkb75q')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/doxylink/archive/refs/tags/1.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 047f8f4b9dbd104c004cfe24211af38b7a21fd707a103b214b6a5c5af3c4790c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 047f8f4b9dbd104c004cfe24211af38b7a21fd707a103b214b6a5c5af3c4790c Requires -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(pyparsing) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(pyparsing) >= 3.0.8) (python3.14dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.8.2) python(abi) python3-pyparsing python3-sphinx python3.14dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink: python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3.14-sphinxcontrib-doxylink python3.14dist(sphinxcontrib-doxylink) python3dist(sphinxcontrib-doxylink) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2387853 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, Ruby, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package is approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink
Folks, please read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming Namely: """ A built (i.e. non-SRPM) package for a Python library MUST be named with the prefix python3-. A source package containing primarily a Python library MUST be named with the prefix python-. """ This component should have been called python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink, not python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink.
Also: Requires: python3-pyparsing Requires: python3-sphinx This is redundant. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatically-generated-dependencies """ Dependencies covered by the generators SHOULD NOT be repeated in the .spec file. (For example, if the generator finds a requests dependency, then Requires: python3-requests is redundant.) """ $ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide --requires python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink (python3.14dist(pyparsing) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(pyparsing) >= 3.0.8) (python3.14dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.8.2) python(abi) = 3.14 python3-pyparsing python3-sphinx python3.14dist(sphinx) >= 1.6
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #17) > This component should have been called python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink, not > python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink. Sorry about it, I'll create a new package with the source package renamed (and fixed Requires).
The package rename re-review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2393134
The package has been retired in favour of the renamed package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2393134).
Please also push the f43 update of python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink and retire python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink on f43.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #22) > Please also push the f43 update of python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink This has already been done. > and retire python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink on f43. Done now.
(In reply to Milan Zamazal from comment #23) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #22) > > Please also push the f43 update of python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink > > This has already been done. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=python-sphinxcontrib-doxylink only shows the Fedora 44 update.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #24) > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=python-sphinxcontrib- > doxylink only shows the Fedora 44 update. Do you know why https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2811184 doesn't show up? Is it just because of the beta freeze or is any special arrangement needed?
(In reply to Milan Zamazal from comment #25) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #24) > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=python-sphinxcontrib- > > doxylink only shows the Fedora 44 update. > > Do you know why > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2811184 doesn't show > up? Is it just because of the beta freeze or is any special arrangement > needed? Fedora 43 Bodhi updates need to be manually created (starting with the Beta Freeze).
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #26) > Fedora 43 Bodhi updates need to be manually created (starting with the Beta > Freeze). I see, done.