https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Bug ID: 1767883 Summary: Review Request: minizip-compat - Library for manipulation with .zip archives Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcallawa@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip-compat.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip-compat-1.2.11-21.src.rpm Description: Minizip is a library for manipulation with files from .zip archives. This package contains the old minizip API, as bundled with zlib. Fedora Account System Username: spot EPEL-8 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38711642
Notes: In Fedora, minizip-compat is a subpackage built from zlib, but in EL-8, this is not done. Chromium needs the minizip-compat API to function properly, so I made a new package for EPEL-8 only. This is _not_ going into Fedora at all, just EPEL8.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |smooge@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #1 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com --- Items brought up by outside review: *-compat packages are deprecated, but of course someone did this with the minizip after the rule was put in place.
[2019-11-04-14:16] <orionp> smooge: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ - should be minizipX.Y [2019-11-04-14:16] <orionp> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
So the package should be called minizip1.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- I respect that, but I'm trying to keep parity with Fedora here. This is a weird situation. Would it be okay if we left this as minizip-compat?
My hope is that chromium upstream eventually moves to the new minizip API, making this unnecessary, but there's no immediate sign of that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #3 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Dist tag is present. - *-compat is deprecated and the package should be called minizip1.2 - Checked all other [ ] items and tested best I could. Stephen Smoogen 2019-11-04
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. -> README file contains zlib license [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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). [!]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package 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
===== 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. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: minizip-compat-1.2.11-21.x86_64.rpm minizip-compat-devel-1.2.11-21.x86_64.rpm minizip-compat-debuginfo-1.2.11-21.x86_64.rpm minizip-compat-debugsource-1.2.11-21.x86_64.rpm minizip-compat-1.2.11-21.src.rpm minizip-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip-compat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation minizip-compat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: minizip-compat-debuginfo-1.2.11-21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). minizip-compat-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip-compat.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip-compat-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip-compat-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip-compat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066
Requires -------- minizip-compat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
minizip-compat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip-compat(x86-64) zlib-devel(x86-64)
minizip-compat-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
minizip-compat-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- minizip-compat: libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip-compat minizip-compat(x86-64)
minizip-compat-devel: minizip-compat-devel minizip-compat-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(minizip)
minizip-compat-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) minizip-compat-debuginfo minizip-compat-debuginfo(x86-64)
minizip-compat-debugsource: minizip-compat-debugsource minizip-compat-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1767883 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Haskell, fonts, Java, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #4 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com --- I am going to check with nirik but the one ! should probably get a + to stay compatible with Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Reconsidered my stance last night, using Provides: minizip-compat/minizip-compat-devel should be sufficient.
New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip1.2.spec New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip1.2-1.2.11-22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: minizip1.2 |minizip-compat - Library |- Library for manipulation |for manipulation with .zip |with .zip archives |archives |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #6 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Dist tag is present.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. -> README file contains zlib license [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: This was found on F31 which is correct. On EL-8 it does not conflict [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package 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
===== 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. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: minizip1.2-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-devel-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-debuginfo-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-debugsource-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-1.2.11-22.src.rpm minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: minizip1.2-debuginfo-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). minizip1.2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip1.2.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066
Requires -------- minizip1.2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
minizip1.2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip1.2(x86-64) zlib-devel(x86-64)
minizip1.2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
minizip1.2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- minizip1.2: libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip-compat minizip1.2 minizip1.2(x86-64)
minizip1.2-devel: minizip-compat-devel minizip1.2-devel minizip1.2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(minizip)
minizip1.2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) minizip1.2-debuginfo minizip1.2-debuginfo(x86-64)
minizip1.2-debugsource: minizip1.2-debugsource minizip1.2-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1767883 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #7 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com --- The only item left on this review is add a
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
I expect that even if this is a library it is still needed.. but since the top package is also borked
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip1.2-1.2.11-23.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/minizip1.2.spec
Adds BuildRequires: gcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Stephen John Smoogen smooge@redhat.com --- OK I am a-ok with this spec file. Thanks for letting me relearn how to do this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |smooge@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip1.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2019-11-08 13:48:08
--- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Built and in EPEL-8.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org