https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Bug ID: 2117349 Summary: Review Request: python-colcon-meson - Extension for colcon to support Meson packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson.spe... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson-0.3...
Description: A colcon extension for building Meson packages.
Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90681454 Target branches: rawhide f37 f36 f35 epel9 epel8 epel7
This spec file is intended to follow the same pattern as the other 38 `colcon` packages already in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
jasmin.marwad@gmail.com jasmin.marwad@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jasmin.marwad@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from jasmin.marwad@gmail.com jasmin.marwad@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/2117349-python-colcon-meson/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/colcon/colcon-meson/archive/0.3.0/colcon-meson-0.3.0.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6c5027a4f8cde2463c9e2a6bdf88dd8e2ad816a02d81f4f92e7aba1ce5c16e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6c5027a4f8cde2463c9e2a6bdf88dd8e2ad816a02d81f4f92e7aba1ce5c16e8
Requires -------- python3-colcon-meson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(colcon-core) python3.11dist(colcon-library-path) python3.11dist(meson)
Provides -------- python3-colcon-meson: python-colcon-meson python3-colcon-meson python3.11-colcon-meson python3.11dist(colcon-meson) python3dist(colcon-meson)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2117349 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1225692
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225692 [Bug 1225692] Tracker for Fedora Robotics SIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |troy@troycurtisjr.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |needinfo?(logans@cottsay.ne | |t)
--- Comment #2 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- A few comments:
The spec file should use the latest python macros, and specifically use .dist-info instead of egg-info https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dist_info...
The use of %{python3_pkgversion} shouldn't be necessary, it is typically to just specify for example: "python3-devel".
The license should be SPDX formatted, and it looks like it should probably be "Apache-2.0". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
Ideally, build requires would use the generated dependencies https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_mac...
I'm not sure about the check "%if %{undefined __pythondist_requires}", but in Fedora is seems like the dependency generator should be used for this purpose. Is this because it is targeting epel as well? (I'm pretty unfamiliar with the needs of epel packages).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #4 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Reviving this, as there is renewed interest.
I gave in and switched over to the pyproject macros, but I'm not thrilled about it. This will be the only package in the python3-colcon-* ecosystem that has moved forward. I was hoping to do them all at once.
I'd very much like to continue using python3_pkgversion. It makes it easier to prototype builds with interpreters other than the defaults, and even though this particular colcon extension can't be built for EPEL 7, most of them can and that would be required there. There are a lot of packages in the colcon ecosystem and it's a lot easier to maintain them all when they're packaged in the same way.
I updated to the SPDX license identifier as well, and bumped to the latest release from upstream.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson.spe... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson-0.4...
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=116005766 Target branches: rawhide f40 f39 epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #5 from Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net --- Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson.spe... SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-colcon-meson/python-colcon-meson-0.4...
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124630718 Target branches: rawhide f41 f40 epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/colcon/c | |olcon-meson
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8123186 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packag...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-colcon- meson/2117349-python-colcon-meson/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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 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 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 630 bytes in 1 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: [-]: 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. [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-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpt_q0dupp')] checks: 32, packages: 2
========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s =========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/colcon/colcon-meson/archive/0.4.5/colcon-meson-0.4.5.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 889663c840947acb12d5465f51670ea8aba865021aaf23ce621fb267ad9a7187 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 889663c840947acb12d5465f51670ea8aba865021aaf23ce621fb267ad9a7187
Requires -------- python3-colcon-meson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(colcon-core) python3.13dist(colcon-library-path) python3.13dist(meson)
Provides -------- python3-colcon-meson: python-colcon-meson python3-colcon-meson python3.13-colcon-meson python3.13dist(colcon-meson) python3dist(colcon-meson)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2117349 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-colcon-meson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-baee4fbeda (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-baee4fbeda
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-03e4130280 (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-03e4130280
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-03e4130280 (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-03e4130280
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a57d2f126c (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a57d2f126c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-920970adf5 (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-920970adf5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed|2023-03-28 00:45:25 |2024-11-05 23:18:28
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-baee4fbeda (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a57d2f126c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a57d2f126c
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-920970adf5 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-920970adf5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-920970adf5
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-03e4130280 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-03e4130280 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-03e4130280
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-920970adf5 (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-03e4130280 (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117349
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a57d2f126c (python-colcon-meson-0.4.5-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org