https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/hzeller/ | |timg --- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6129269 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #4 from Ryan <errornointernet(a)envs.net&gt; --- Hello, Thanks for the recommendations :) Here's the full list of changes I've made: 1. Included all the licenses in all the files (Fedora Review) 2. Used `%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz` as the source 3. Split BuildRequires onto multiple lines 4. Renamed "g++" dependency to "gcc-c++" (Fedora Review) 5. Split description into shorter lines 6. %build now only contains 2 lines, %cmake and %cmake_build 7. %install now only contains 1 line, %cmake_install New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #6 from Ryan <errornointernet(a)envs.net&gt; --- Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it. Current changes: - `GPL-2.0` -> `GPL-2.0-only` - `timg.1.gz` -> `timg.1*` - `BuildRequires: zlib-devel` -> `BuildRequires: libdeflate-devel` (upstream change) - +`BuildRequires: stb_image-devel stb_image_resize-devel` I'll submit qoi as a new package. I'm assuming I should put a `rm -rf third_party` after `%autosetup` in `%prep`? v1.5.0 introduced sixel support, but libsixel is not yet packaged in Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772). So I guess I'll be packaging that too? I'm not sure how exactly though, do I submit a new bug, or "take over" existing one? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #9 from Ryan <errornointernet(a)envs.net&gt; --- Bumped version to 1.5.2 New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6357988 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Bug 2209858 depends on bug 2227397, which changed state. Bug 2227397 Summary: Review Request: libsixel - SIXEL encoding and decoding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227397 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #12 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Both qoi and libsixel have been approved and are now available in Rawhide. Can you update the spec file with libsixel support and reupload the spec & srpm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 2000625 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2000625&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6357988 to 6672256 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #16 from Ryan <errornointernet(a)envs.net&gt; --- Updated to 1.5.3: New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/f... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6704084 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 2010691 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2010691&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6704084 to 6960222 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |fedora(a)svgames.pl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #22 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. The license field in the spec is: "GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT". timg sources seem subject to GPL-2.0-only. The program uses some header-only libraries: qoi (MIT) and stb_image (MIT OR Unlicence). Where does the "GPL-2.0-or-later" part come from? [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). * timg.src: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode') "Unicode" should be capitalised. * timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1'] This message seems to be caused by the lack of a changelog entry for 1.6.0-1. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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 27742 bytes in 1 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Link to successful scratch build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114708433 [-]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: timg-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm timg-debuginfo-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm timg-debugsource-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm timg-1.6.0-1.fc41.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/tmpwtvkx88w')] checks: 32, packages: 4 timg.src: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') timg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1'] ====== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s ====== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: timg-debuginfo-1.6.0-1.fc41.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/tmp3jb6qx6d')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ====== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 3 timg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hzeller/timg/archive/v1.6.0/timg-1.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9e1b99b4eaed82297ad2ebbde02e3781775e3bba6d3e298d7598be5f4e1c49af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e1b99b4eaed82297ad2ebbde02e3781775e3bba6d3e298d7598be5f4e1c49af Requires -------- timg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGraphicsMagick++-Q16.so.12()(64bit) libGraphicsMagick-Q16.so.3()(64bit) libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) libavdevice.so.60()(64bit) libavdevice.so.60(LIBAVDEVICE_60)(64bit) libavformat.so.60()(64bit) libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) libavutil.so.58()(64bit) libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdeflate.so.0()(64bit) libexif.so.12()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpoppler-glib.so.8()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) libsixel.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libswscale.so.7()(64bit) libswscale.so.7(LIBSWSCALE_7)(64bit) libturbojpeg.so.0()(64bit) libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.0)(64bit) libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.2)(64bit) libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) timg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): timg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- timg: timg timg(x86-64) timg-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) timg-debuginfo timg-debuginfo(x86-64) timg-debugsource: timg-debugsource timg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2209858 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 2020989 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2020989&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6960222 to 7131942 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #26 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Personally I'd argue that, since these are header-only libraries that are, effectively, statically-linked into the executable, it does not matter whether we're using the bundled versions from the third_party/ directory, or the ones provided by Fedora packages - their licences should still be included in the tag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 2021207 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2021207&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7131942 to 7141433 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 --- Comment #30 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- This should be "GPL-2.0-only AND MIT AND (MIT OR Unlicense)". Please use the full license list here; do not try to simplify it by calculating the "effective license". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_l... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #32 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- LGTM. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |timg-1.6.0-4.fc41 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2024-04-11 18:33:19 --- Comment #34 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Closing this as the package has been successfully imported and built for Rawhide. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2423417 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209858 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...