[Bug 2310392] New: Review Request: dftd4 - Generally Applicable Atomic-Charge Dependent London Dispersion Correction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Bug ID: 2310392 Summary: Review Request: dftd4 - Generally Applicable Atomic-Charge Dependent London Dispersion Correction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.lehtola@iki.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4-3.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola
Description: Generally Applicable Atomic-Charge Dependent London Dispersion Correction.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2267838 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Depends On| |2310390 (mstore), 2310391 | |(multicharge) Alias| |dftd4
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267838 [Bug 2267838] xtb-6.7.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310390 [Bug 2310390] Review Request: mstore - Molecular structure store for testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310391 [Bug 2310391] Review Request: multicharge - Electronegativity equilibration model for atomic partial charges
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://dftd4.readthedocs.i | |o/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7988990 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2310392
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it as soon as packages from bug 2310390 and bug 2310391 hits Rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- Added missing BR and fixed link on ix86
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4-3.7.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- Added missing requires on base package
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4-3.7.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2045801 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2045801&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7988990 to 7997588
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7997588 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2310392
--- Comment #7 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- Added missing BR: mstore-devel
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2046503 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2046503&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7997588 to 8011143
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8011143 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2310392
--- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- BR: python3-cffi was also missing.
All dependencies have hit rawhide, and the build now passes through fedora-review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Ok, I can't find any issues so here is my formal
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++/
^^^ false positive.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 (LGPLv3+). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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 does not contain desktop file (not 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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No extremely Large documentation 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: No Python eggs. [-]: 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). [?]: i did not check if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (3.7.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [x]: Package compiles and builds 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]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.rpm dftd4-devel-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.rpm python3-dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.rpm dftd4-debuginfo-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.rpm dftd4-debugsource-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.rpm dftd4-3.7.0-4.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/tmpkktgf1zy')] checks: 32, packages: 6
dftd4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-dftd4.x86_64: W: no-documentation ================================================================================================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 37 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s =================================================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dftd4-debuginfo-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpcx_gtwvo')] checks: 32, packages: 1
================================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 5
dftd4.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/dftd4 /lib64/libm.so.6 dftd4.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/dftd4 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 python3-dftd4.x86_64: W: no-documentation dftd4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 35 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.3 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-dftd4: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/dftd4/_libdftd4.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dftd4/dftd4/archive/v3.7.0/dftd4-3.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f00b244759eff2c4f54b80a40673440ce951b6ddfa5eee1f46124297e056f69c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f00b244759eff2c4f54b80a40673440ce951b6ddfa5eee1f46124297e056f69c
Requires -------- dftd4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdftd4.so.3()(64bit) libflexiblas64.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.5)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_5.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmctc-lib.so.0()(64bit) libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dftd4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config dftd4(x86-64) libdftd4.so.3()(64bit) pkgconfig(mctc-lib) pkgconfig(multicharge)
python3-dftd4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dftd4(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdftd4.so.3()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dftd4-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dftd4-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- dftd4: dftd4 dftd4(x86-64) libdftd4.so.3()(64bit)
dftd4-devel: dftd4-devel dftd4-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(dftd4)
python3-dftd4: python-dftd4 python3-dftd4 python3-dftd4(x86-64) python3.13-dftd4
dftd4-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dftd4-debuginfo dftd4-debuginfo(x86-64) libdftd4.so.3.7.0-3.7.0-4.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
dftd4-debugsource: dftd4-debugsource dftd4-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/petro/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dftd4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter@orascom.com Flags| |needinfo?(peter@orascom.com | |) | |needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #13 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- @lemenkov@gmail.com many thanks for doing these three reviews!!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc40, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc40, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc41, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc41, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d
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=2310392
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c
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=2310392
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d
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=2310392
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c
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=2310392 Bug 2310392 depends on bug 2310390, which changed state.
Bug 2310390 Summary: Review Request: mstore - Molecular structure store for testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310390
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392 Bug 2310392 depends on bug 2310391, which changed state.
Bug 2310391 Summary: Review Request: multicharge - Electronegativity equilibration model for atomic partial charges https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310391
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-09-23 00:15:36
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4be227e78d (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc41, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc41, and 2 more) 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=2310392
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a26e2b1b4c (dftd4-3.7.0-4.fc40, mstore-0.3.0-2.fc40, and 2 more) 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=2310392
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lemenkov@gmail.co |needinfo+ |m) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com