Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec SRPM URL: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl-2-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Python packaging operations, including PEP-517 support, for use by a script. Fedora Account System Username: mjg
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10391093 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2462581-python-pipcl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10391093-python-pipcl/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.
pipcl used to be part of Artifex's PyMuPDF and has been factored out for reuse. Consequently, PyMuPDF 1.27.3 and above need python-pipcl for successful builds. I have verified that this works with my regular rebuilds of mupdf and PyMuPDF in copr here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mjg/mupdf-git These use https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mjg/python-pipcl for builds (or else they would fail).
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. [ ]: 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 /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python- pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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 Python: [-]: 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. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pipcl-2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-pipcl-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/tmpd528f4fq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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 python3-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/archive/v2/pipcl-2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 07294dfbfe7246297d934ef35c82e074bfb5965f1502b9fd201947f1b2b6bc41 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07294dfbfe7246297d934ef35c82e074bfb5965f1502b9fd201947f1b2b6bc41 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/refs/heads/main/COPYING : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 57c8ff33c9c0cfc3ef00e650a1cc910d7ee479a8bc509f6c9209a7c2a11399d6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 57c8ff33c9c0cfc3ef00e650a1cc910d7ee479a8bc509f6c9209a7c2a11399d6 Requires -------- python3-pipcl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pipcl: python-pipcl python3-pipcl python3.14-pipcl python3.14dist(pipcl) python3dist(pipcl) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/srpm/python-pipcl.spec 2026-04-27 11:47:40.962757703 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/srpm-unpacked/python-pipcl.spec 2026-04-25 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -39,13 +39,4 @@ %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} %_description -%if %{with docs} -%package doc -Summary: Documentation for python-%{pypi_name} -BuildArch: noarch - -%description doc -python-%{pypi_name}-doc contains documentation for %{pypi_name} -%endif - %prep %autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version} -p 1 Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2462581 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Java, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Do consider building the documentation. Sorry for the delay in importing autodocsumm. Example build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144900428 b) doctest seems like it can also be run if swig is installed on the system, and a patch applied, see example build above. c) As not all tests are run, consider adding %pyproject_check_import in the import section. d) Unclear if the code is AGPL-3.0-only or AGPL-3.0-or-later, see: https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/pull/2 e) If the doc package will be separate from the main package, please add the license file to it.
Thanks for the remarks and for prodding upstream about the license. I vaguely remember from the SPDX migration that AGPL 3.0 is automatically "or later", but I might be wrong, in any case pyproject.toml should agree. I have updated spec and srpm at the mentioned URLs (hopefully consistent this time - sorry) and also pushed my spec branch here: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/ This should be able to build as soon as autodocsumm landed in the compose.
Does the new spec address the review remarks?
Comments: a) Please change: The spec file at https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/plain/python-pipcl.spec is mostly ok, though is not the same as what is at https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec b) Upstream has not updated the license information. As AGPL-3.0-only is more restrictive than AGPL-3.0-or-later unless you have other information from upstream, suggest to use AGPL-3.0-only
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6) > Comments: > > a) Please change: > > The spec file at > https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/plain/python- > pipcl.spec > is mostly ok, though is not the same as what is at > > https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec because I had omitted the rpmdev part of the path when copying, sorry. Corrected with the stricter license as per: > b) Upstream has not updated the license information. As AGPL-3.0-only is > more restrictive than AGPL-3.0-or-later unless you have other information > from upstream, suggest to use AGPL-3.0-only git, spec and srpm should be in sync now, as well as the copr build which succeeds on rawhide and F44 now where autodocsumm has landed.
Meanwhile, upstream has released v7, and I've adjusted spec and srpm both in https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/ and https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/: v7 introduces an additional dependency on `packaging`, which is picked up by our macros without problems, but which makes pip hit the internet (when sphinx installs the package from sources). No `--no-deps` kept pip from doing so, so we patch out the requires after building the wheel and before calling sphinx.
Upstream is at v9 now, I've updated git, spec and srpm. In other news: The swig rebuild has landed on F43. This makes `python3dist(swig)` work as a BR there, too, and consequently the package builds in all current Fedora releases plus rawhide now (in copr). The same upstream is preparing for a new major release of mupdf and PyMuPDF; the latter will require pipcl.
Upstream is at v10 now, I've updated git, spec and srpm, as well as the copr build. @Benson Muite Please indicate whether you are still interested in reviewing and what you need me to provide (such as a review re-run) or change.
srpm: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl-10-1.fc44.src.rpm spec: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec
Maybe contact the developers to get the license clarified? https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware http://www.artifex.com/
Thanks for the suggestion. I"ve talked to upstream, they clarified the "only" part using a licence classifier now, and they released v11 with that: srpm: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl-11-1.fc44.src.rpm spec: https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10667527 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2462581-python-pipcl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10667527-python-pipcl/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10667528 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2462581-python-pipcl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10667528-python-pipcl/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 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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pipcl/2462581-python- pipcl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15, /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages [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. [-]: 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 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 Python: [-]: 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: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pipcl [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pipcl-11-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-pipcl-doc-11-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-pipcl-11-1.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/tmpzq_m2d4f')] checks: 32, packages: 3 python3-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation python-pipcl-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-pipcl-doc/html/.buildinfo 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 python3-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation python-pipcl-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-pipcl-doc/html/.buildinfo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/archive/v11/pipcl-11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 889dc6649653cc8dc66d37ea03e4f6824303cf64f159fb158c2fba10b0205c7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 889dc6649653cc8dc66d37ea03e4f6824303cf64f159fb158c2fba10b0205c7d Requires -------- python3-pipcl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.15dist(packaging) python-pipcl-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pipcl: python-pipcl python3-pipcl python3.15-pipcl python3.15dist(pipcl) python3dist(pipcl) python-pipcl-doc: python-pipcl-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2462581 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, R, Java, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks, Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pipcl Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17) > Comments: > a) Thanks, Approved. Thanks for hanging in there and being thorough!
FEDORA-2026-1f5e2269b8 (python-pipcl-11-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1f5e2269b8
FEDORA-2026-1f5e2269b8 (python-pipcl-11-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-0dc81d876c (python-pipcl-11-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0dc81d876c
FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e (python-pipcl-11-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e
FEDORA-2026-0dc81d876c 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-2026-0dc81d876c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0dc81d876c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-51e3ffc99e (python-pipcl-11-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-0dc81d876c (python-pipcl-11-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.