https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Bug ID: 2228155 Summary: Review Request: dante - A free SOCKS v4/v5 client implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tim@goat.re QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104224097
Description: Dante is a free implementation of the SOCKS proxy protocol, version 4, and version 5 (rfc1928). It can be used as a firewall between networks. It is being developed by Inferno Nettverk A/S, a Norwegian consulting company. Commercial support is available.
This package contains the dynamic libraries required to "socksify" existing applications, allowing them to automatically use the SOCKS protocol.
Fedora Account System Username: semeijn
This is my first package and I am in need of a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.inet.no/%%7Bname%7D
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6229938 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |farchord@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Hello Tim,
I might be willing to help by becoming a sponsor on this package, but I noticed something.
The license for this package (https://www.inet.no/dante/LICENSE) seems to be a custom license and might need to be looked into by the Fedora Legal team, have you checked into that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #3 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- You can find the Fedora allowed licenses here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
That license is not specifically allowed or denied, it just seems like a custom variation. It just needs to be approved before this can go through.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #4 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Hello Steve,
Thanks for sharing your intention to be willing to help by becoming a sponsor on this package, much appreciated!
The license seems to be BSD-4-Clause with some additions. I created a new issue in the Fedora License Data Gitlab repository (https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/305) to get this license reviewed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #5 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- The license has been approved but combines two clauses so it needs to be submitted to SPDX as a new license. I will work on this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #6 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Good to know! I'll keep an eye on this!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Gitlab | |fedora/legal/fedora-license | |-data/-/issues/305
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Github | |spdx/license-list-XML/issue | |s/2098
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #7 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- New license has been merged into SPDX and is currently awaiting merge into Fedora License Data (https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/376).
Once that final merge goes through I will rebuild the package with the new license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #8 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid...
New build with the newly created and accepted license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |farchord@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Taking this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #10 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-Inferno-Nettverk'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [ ]: 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", "BSD 4-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "ISC License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/farchord/Documents/reviews/2228155-dante/licensecheck.txt [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). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 127908 bytes in 14 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in dante-server [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dante- server , dante-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: dante-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-server-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-devel-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debugsource-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp7umvk_f7')] checks: 31, packages: 6
dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so dante.src: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1307274 dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/CREDITS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/NEWS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/socksify.1.gz dante-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd ====================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s =======================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-server-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ====================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuefffcr9')] checks: 31, packages: 2
dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk ======================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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 checks: 31, packages: 6
dante-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/sockd /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1307274 dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/CREDITS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/NEWS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/socksify.1.gz dante-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 14 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- dante: /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://www.inet.no/dante/files/dante-1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d
Requires -------- dante (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(dante) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dante-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(dante-server) dante libc.so.6()(64bit) libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dante-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dante libsocks.so.0()(64bit)
dante-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dante-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- dante: config(dante) dante dante(x86-64) libdsocks.so()(64bit) libsocks.so.0()(64bit)
dante-server: config(dante-server) dante-server dante-server(x86-64)
dante-devel: dante-devel dante-devel(x86-64)
dante-debuginfo: dante-debuginfo dante-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libdsocks.so-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsocks.so.0.1.1-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
dante-debugsource: dante-debugsource dante-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228155 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #11 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- A couple things in there. The warnings, I'll have to look into, and we might have to wait until the license change hits rawhide. I'll check with Fedora Legal about this just to make sure.
But there seems to be some linting issues there that needs to be fixed.
Would it be possible to also document the extra steps you took in the %build step in the spec, as a comment?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #12 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Last friday fedora-license-data got updated in the rawhide compose so it indeed seems we have to await the inclusion of the new license. Thanks for following up on that with Legal.
I will retrace the reason for including the additional build steps and comment them properly. Furthermore I will work on the issues from the initial review and the linting errors and produce a new build.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #13 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Just for clarity's sake:
dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd
Those are fine, it does make sense considering this is a socks server
dante.src: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk
Can be ignored as it's approved. Checked, as long as it's approved this can go through.
dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd
This one might be a security issue, so I'd probably try to have it fixed upstream
dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so
This one, if you can get it fixed that would be good.
dante-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/sockd /lib64/libcom_err.so.2
This one isn't a deal breaker but I'd probably still report it upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #14 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Thanks for further elaborating on the rpmlint output.
Commented %build section is done and working on the remaining rpmlint issues. I am contacting upstream about the specific errors.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #15 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid...
The file-not-utf8 rpmlint warnings are fixed and all %build steps are commented.
dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd
This one is fixed with a patch provided by upstream.
dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so
Upstream states that the missing versioning is deliberate as this library is used for preloading and the name is hardcoded in scripts (such as socksify). They say it is not meant for direct linking so the name is not versioned.
dante-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/sockd /lib64/libcom_err.so.2
Upstream states that this library is used for some build/dependency combinations of the gssapi/kerberos code. It can probably be fixed, but will likely need some time for testing to ensure no portability problems are introduced.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1992139 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1992139&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6229938 to 6490725
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6490725 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #18 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Alright, some additional suggestions before I go with the final check:
1- The server subpackage should require exactly the same version as the main package. Similar to what you did with the devel subpackage. But you should also use the %{_isa} macro so that it works properly across different arches. For example: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Should be:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_spe...
2- %{_libdir}/libdsocks.so should be moved to the devel package
Once that's done, I'll do a final check and then I think I'll be ready to approve this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #19 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Also, I've been looking into the requirements for sponsorship. I'm afraid I can't sponsor you, it seems you need a certain amount of reviews to sponsor, which I don't have.
But once the changes are done and everything is good to go, I'll still approve it so you would just need to get a sponsor.
Oh, unrelated to this: You should also recommend upstream to adapt SPDX licensing for their source files. Would make licensing tasks much easier.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #20 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid...
Added the %{_isa} macro for server and devel package. %{_libdir}/libdsocks.so has been moved to the devel package.
I will recommend upstream to adapt SPDX licensing.
Thanks for taking this review and willingness to sponsor me. Once the package is approved I will find a new sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1992251 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1992251&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6490725 to 6492483
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6492483 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #23 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- I did find someone that is willing to sponsor you yesterday after I posted here. We'll get back to this once the review is done.
There's still one issue left:
dante-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so
Fedora's documentation does have some use cases for this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname
Namely:
The handling of this error depends on ld.so's load path (the "linker path") and whether it refers to a private or public library.
The linker path is %{_libdir} + any path listed in /etc/ld.so.conf or in a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d.
Public libraries are libs expected to be used by other packages, Other libraries e. g., plugins and functionality internal to the package are private.
We have four cases:
The library is public. Inform upstream about the issue and propose that they add or fix versioning, possibly by sending a patch. Don't apply the patch until it's merged upstream to avoid upgrade problems. The library is stored outside the linker path. In this case the error can be ignored. The library is private and stored in a directory included in the linker path. If possible, move the library to another directory outside the linker path. This might require patching build scripts. The library is private, stored in a directory included in the linker path and can't be moved. Here, the library must have a name unlikely to clash with other libraries. Consider filtering the Provides: to make sure the private library isn't visible. The standard way to move a private library is to create a new directory under %{_libdir} e. g., /usr/lib/myapp. Don't list it in /etc/ld.so.conf files! Instead, use a rpath to let the application locate the library.
I feel like moving the file to it's own directory would be the prefered solution.
Upstream states that the missing versioning is deliberate as this library is used for preloading and the name is hardcoded in scripts (such as socksify). They say it is not meant for direct linking so the name is not versioned.
The problem is more that, imagine there's an existing package called "PackageX" that comes with it's own "libdsocks.so". Unless that other package has that file in a subdirectory outside of the linker path, both packages would clash. That's the problem that library versioning usually tries to solve.
Ultimately, how you resolve this problem is up to you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #24 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- libdsocks.so is used by the socksify functionality of the main package. I will work on getting the lib moved to it's own subdirectory and patch the socksify functionality. This would also mean this lib can be moved back to the main package as it conforms to the requirements of the solution for this rpmlint error.
Thanks for the feedback!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #25 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid...
Added libdir flag to %configure to place all .so files in a subdirectory of %{_libdir}. This solves the invalid-soname rpmlint error for libdsocks.so.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1992963 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1992963&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6492483 to 6506229
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506229 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #28 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- All good, except for one last thing:
Please make the package owns %{_libdir}/dante/
Then I'll go ahead and approve this.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/dante [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/dante [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in dante-server [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: dante-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-server-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-devel-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debugsource-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp99o9bv6g')] checks: 31, packages: 6
dante-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dante.src: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1307274 dante-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/dante/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/dante/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dante-server-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc6b5nwlx')] checks: 31, packages: 2
dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-server-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-server". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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 checks: 31, packages: 6
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- dante: /usr/lib64/dante/libdsocks.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://www.inet.no/dante/files/dante-1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d
Requires -------- dante (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(dante) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dante-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(dante-server) dante(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dante-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dante(x86-64) libsocks.so.0()(64bit)
dante-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dante-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- dante: config(dante) dante dante(x86-64) libdsocks.so()(64bit) libsocks.so.0()(64bit)
dante-server: config(dante-server) dante-server dante-server(x86-64)
dante-devel: dante-devel dante-devel(x86-64)
dante-debuginfo: dante-debuginfo dante-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libdsocks.so-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsocks.so.0.1.1-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
dante-debugsource: dante-debugsource dante-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name dante --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #29 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/semeijn/lab/fedora-rawhid...
Package owns %{_libdir}/dante now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1992996 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1992996&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6506229 to 6506427
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506427 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #32 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Looks good to me!
APPROVED
Now about the sponsorship, I've got someone interested in Sponsoring you. I'll point him to this review, but if you want come meet us in #fedora-kde in the Fedora Matrix server!
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/communications/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #33 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I've sponsored you as a packager. Welcome to Fedora and I hope you enjoy contributing. :)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |me@fale.io
--- Comment #34 from Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io --- I'd love to see this package in Fedora. Any news on the import of it? Can I help?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #35 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- Should have imported it way earlier, my bad. Getting the following:
Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Can this please be reapproved?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #36 from Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io --- Removing and re-adding the approval, since no new releases have been created by upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #37 from Fabio Alessandro Locati me@fale.io --- Retry now :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #38 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Reapproved, try now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dante
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-fad13bc5b0 (dante-1.4.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fad13bc5b0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-02-11 23:36:05
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-fad13bc5b0 (dante-1.4.3-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com