Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec Description: Hides the boilerplate code needed with std::sync::Condvar.
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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 repository link in Cargo.toml is broken; I found the correct repository and filed https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/1 to fix it. You might consider correcting the repository link downstream with "rust2rpm -p". Both MIT and Apache-2.0 license texts are missing from the published crate and the upstream repository. Both licenses require the text to be distributed, so you have to actually fix this. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, and try working with upstream first.
Thanks. https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/issues/2 SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
As it says, https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm results in a 404 not found. Can the upload be fixed? ( https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm works well )
Weird. SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205132 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434112-rust-cond_sync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205132-rust-cond_sync/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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust- cond_sync/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- cond_sync-devel , rust-cond_sync+default-devel [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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
I suggest Apache2+MIT license files be added to the RPM package, while we wait for upstream to fix it in the crate.
Took me long enough that upstream fixed it. SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc45.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10257897 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434112-rust-cond_sync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10257897-rust-cond_sync/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE-APACHE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
It looks like you have edited the output of rust2rpm to remove these lines, -%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE -%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT presumably to stop fedora-review from complaining about duplicate entries in the files list. (The second entry for each of these files is the recursive %{crate_instdir}/.) This “duplication,” though, is harmless (it doesn’t result in duplicate installed files), it’s due to a reasonable rust2rpm design decision (otherwise all the contents of %{crate_instdir}/ would have to be listed individually in order to mark only some of them as %license or %doc without duplication), and these lines are *necessary*, because license files *must* be marked with the %license directive: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text. Ideally, the metadata patch would link https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/1. In general, metadata patches should be documented in terms of what they do and why, and the upstream status (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/) of these changes. You can use package.cargo-toml-patch-comments in rust2rpm.toml for this. You might consider adding exclude = ["scripts/**"] to Cargo.toml. The script scripts/qualify is really only for upstream development, it has the execute bit set, its shebang line expects it to run with https://github.com/DanielKeep/cargo-script, and the /usr/bin/env in the script is counter to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines. It seems cleaner to just omit it. You could even suggest the change upstream, since it’s not useful to people building the published crate with cargo, either.
Are you still working on this? Thanks!
I am. Where would the exclude line go? The package section?
(In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #14) > I am. Where would the exclude line go? The package section? The [package] section in Cargo.toml, as part of the "rust2rpm -p" metadata patch. You could document it in rust2rpm.toml in package.cargo-toml-patch-comments. https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-exclude-and-include-fields There’s now also an exclude-crate-files setting that you can apply in the [package] setting of rust2rpm.toml, with a similar effect. Per the rust2rpm.toml man page, this one is intended for cases where “files need to be excluded from packages for ‘crate’ sources, but submitting a patch to the upstream project to exclude them from published crates isn’t desirable (for example, files that are necessary during testing only).” In this case, the exclusion is upstreamable.
rust2rpm properly declare LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT as %license - it's fine to have duplicate file warning errors. Without them rpm -qpL does not show any files declared as licenses === Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. Issues to address before approval: - License file LICENSE-APACHE is not marked as %license ✅ package contains only permissible content ✅ package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ✅ test suite is run and all unit tests pass ✅ latest version of the crate is packaged (spec & crates.io: 0.2.2) ✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora (spec & Cargo.toml: MIT OR Apache-2.0) ❌ license file is included with %license in %files (please do not remove the %license entries) ✅ package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package not yet approved — please address the above. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: cond_sync homepage: https://crates.io/crates/cond_sync backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-cond_sync - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
I see music already did some recommendations earlier so I'll unassign myself
Ok, I think I've got it. SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc45.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec Thanks for your patience. :)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10706938 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434112-rust-cond_sync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10706938-rust-cond_sync/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.
I strongly suggest adding documentation and upstream status for the metadata patch (details below); this is a SHOULD in the packaging guidelines, so the package is nevertheless APPROVED as-is. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. There is a metadata patch: --- cond_sync-0.2.2/Cargo.toml 2006-07-24T01:21:28+00:00 +++ cond_sync-0.2.2/Cargo.toml 2026-07-10T17:21:21.844241+00:00 @@ -28,7 +28,8 @@ ] categories = ["concurrency"] license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0" -repository = "https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync" +repository = "https://github.com/emabee/cond_sync" +exclude = ["scripts/**"] [lib] name = "cond_sync" This is all reasonable, but neither the rationale nor the upstream status is documented. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ Consider something like this, in rust2rpm.toml: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ "Fix broken repository link: https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/1", """\ Exclude scripts to avoid generating unwanted dependencies: \ https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/3\ """, ] Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cond_sync-0.2.2/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem, due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2434112-rust- cond_sync/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- cond_sync-devel , rust-cond_sync+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. See comments and suggestions at the beginning of this review. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148043321 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). OK: rpmlint messages are benign, due to spell-check flagging jargon Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-cond_sync-devel-0.2.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-cond_sync+default-devel-0.2.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4ggrnvqs')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-cond_sync+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', 'Summary(en_US) Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', '%description -l en_US Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync.src: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', 'Summary(en_US) Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync.src: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', '%description -l en_US Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', 'Summary(en_US) Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', '%description -l en_US Condvar -> Condor') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 rust-cond_sync+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', 'Summary(en_US) Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', '%description -l en_US Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', 'Summary(en_US) Condvar -> Condor') rust-cond_sync-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Condvar', '%description -l en_US Condvar -> Condor') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/cond_sync/0.2.2/download#/cond_sync-0.2.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1ef6281e336204af242bcbb380c52b68d29f3466b137f258a79393657bf69978 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ef6281e336204af242bcbb380c52b68d29f3466b137f258a79393657bf69978 Requires -------- rust-cond_sync-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-cond_sync+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cond_sync) Provides -------- rust-cond_sync-devel: crate(cond_sync) rust-cond_sync-devel rust-cond_sync+default-devel: crate(cond_sync/default) rust-cond_sync+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2434112-rust-cond_sync/srpm/rust-cond_sync.spec 2026-07-12 07:44:16.543574634 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2434112-rust-cond_sync/srpm-unpacked/rust-cond_sync.spec 2026-07-10 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 28 %bcond check 1 @@ -70,3 +80,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Jul 10 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.2.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2434112 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Java, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Excellent, thank you so much!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cond_sync Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9 (rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-dc100930d5 (rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.el10_3) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.3. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-dc100930d5
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-dc100930d5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-dc100930d5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-dc100930d5 (rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.el10_3) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-c8de94a0c9 (rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.