Bug 2229349

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6244276
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229349-lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06244276-lfortran/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

Can you bump it to v0.29.0?

Need to resolve this issue upstream first:
https://github.com/lfortran/lfortran/issues/2578
Can ping you once ready.

I think this is all merged upstream, and also kokkos support, so can we try to package this again?

Update: 

SPEC: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran.spec
SRPM: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

@tuliom Could you have a look at this?

Thanks for the updates
[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2007531 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6244276 to 6869102

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6869102
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229349-lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06869102-lfortran/builder-live.log.gz

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.

Needs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256570 to build

Suggestion from https://github.com/andriish in https://github.com/lfortran/lfortran/issues/3044
Use at least 4 sub packages:
- compiler
- headers. Depend on compiler.
- shared lib runtime, i.e. similar to libgfortran package, which contains just one file. This should be a dependency for compiler.
- static lib runtime, i.e. similar to libgfortran-static package, which contains just one file.
- Jupiter file. This would also require listing some Jupiter dependencies. Depends on compiler.

@benson_muite Do you want to implement that or should I?

Happy to implement these changes. Will need a zlib-ng-static package or for zlib-ng not to obsolete zlib as the package needs to build on rawhide.

Update implementing subpackages:

SPEC: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran.spec
SRPM: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-2.fc39.src.rpm

The spec looks good to me as is.
Despite that, I have a few comments and questions that I hope will improve it further.

By the way, I believe the previous comment should point to the SRPM at https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-2.fc40.src.rpm

> ExclusiveArch: x86_64

AFAICS, lfortran does support aarch64. Any reasons to restrict to x86_64?

Besides that, should WITH_TARGET_AARCH64 and WITH_TARGET_WASM also be enabled in all builds?
This is what I'm seeing right now:
WITH_TARGET_AARCH64: no
WITH_TARGET_X86: yes
WITH_TARGET_WASM: no

> BuildRequires: llvm16-devel

Does lfortran support LLVM 17?
If it does, I suggest to move to this version.

(In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #15)
> By the way, I believe the previous comment should point to the SRPM at
> https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
Sorry, my bad, thanks for catching that.
> 
> > ExclusiveArch: x86_64
> 
> AFAICS, lfortran does support aarch64. Any reasons to restrict to x86_64?
Yes, right now there is a bug in the complex number of aarch64, see: https://github.com/lfortran/lfortran/issues/2981, hence I would like to wait until the next release to enable aarch64 (and ppc64le)

> 
> Besides that, should WITH_TARGET_AARCH64 and WITH_TARGET_WASM also be
> enabled in all builds?
> This is what I'm seeing right now:
> WITH_TARGET_AARCH64: no
> WITH_TARGET_X86: yes
> WITH_TARGET_WASM: no
Let me take care of that!

> 
> > BuildRequires: llvm16-devel
> 
> Does lfortran support LLVM 17?
> If it does, I suggest to move to this version.
It is in the making: https://github.com/lfortran/lfortran/issues/2916, but it will take a little more work.

Here you go:

SPEC: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran.spec
SRPM: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111807140

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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 3-Clause License Apache License
     2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Apache License
     2.0", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License,
     Version 2". 305 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /tmp/lfortran/lfortran/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/jupyter/kernels/fortran
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/jupyter/kernels/fortran
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: lfortran-static.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 2285 bytes in 1 files.
[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
     lfortran-static , lfortran-shared
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: lfortran-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-devel-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-static-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-shared-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-jupyter-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-debuginfo-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-debugsource-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-0.30.0-3.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/tmpwk02b5io')]
checks: 31, packages: 8

lfortran-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/liblfortran_runtime_static.a
lfortran-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-jupyter.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-shared.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-jupyter.x86_64: E: no-binary
============ 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.8 s ============




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: lfortran-debuginfo-0.30.0-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lfortran-shared-debuginfo-0.30.0-3.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/tmpchomt9lb')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

============ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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: 8

lfortran-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/liblfortran_runtime_static.a
lfortran-jupyter.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-shared.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lfortran-jupyter.x86_64: E: no-binary
 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 45 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://lfortran.github.io/tarballs/release/lfortran-0.30.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : aafdfbfe81d69ceb3650ae1cf9bcd8a1f1532d895bf88f3071fe9610859bcd6f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aafdfbfe81d69ceb3650ae1cf9bcd8a1f1532d895bf88f3071fe9610859bcd6f


Requires
--------
lfortran (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    lfortran-shared(x86-64)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(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_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    libxeus-zmq.so.2()(64bit)
    libxeus.so.9()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit)
    libzmq.so.5()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lfortran-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lfortran(x86-64)
    liblfortran_runtime.so.0()(64bit)

lfortran-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lfortran-shared (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lfortran-jupyter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jupyterlab
    lfortran(x86-64)

lfortran-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lfortran-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
lfortran:
    lfortran
    lfortran(x86-64)

lfortran-devel:
    lfortran-devel
    lfortran-devel(x86-64)

lfortran-static:
    lfortran-static
    lfortran-static(x86-64)

lfortran-shared:
    lfortran-shared
    lfortran-shared(x86-64)
    liblfortran_runtime.so.0()(64bit)

lfortran-jupyter:
    lfortran-jupyter
    lfortran-jupyter(x86-64)

lfortran-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    lfortran-debuginfo
    lfortran-debuginfo(x86-64)

lfortran-debugsource:
    lfortran-debugsource
    lfortran-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn ./lfortran-0.30.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, R, Java, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

@junghans , I run fedora-review against this and it caught 1 last thing:

[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/jupyter/kernels/fortran

This directory should be owned by the -jupyter package, e.g.

%files jupyter
%dir %{_datadir}/jupyter/kernels/fortran/
%{_datadir}/jupyter/kernels/fortran/kernel.json

More information is available at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/

Thanks. Will add that.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06909063-lfortran/lfortran.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06909063-lfortran/lfortran-devel-0.30.0-4.fc40.x86_64.rpm

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111832249

Benson,

I'm not sure this is right:

%files jupyter
%dir %{_datadir}/jupyter
%dir %{_datadir}/jupyter/kernels

These 2 directories are already owned by python-jupyter-filesystem.

Are you trying to solve another issue?
Maybe lfortran-jupyter needs the following instead?

Requires: python-jupyter-filesystem

(In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #22)
> Benson,
> 
> I'm not sure this is right:
> 
> %files jupyter
> %dir %{_datadir}/jupyter
> %dir %{_datadir}/jupyter/kernels
> 
> These 2 directories are already owned by python-jupyter-filesystem.
Fixed

> 
> Are you trying to solve another issue?
> Maybe lfortran-jupyter needs the following instead?
> 
> Requires: python-jupyter-filesystem
Added



SPEC: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran.spec
SRPM: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/lfortran-0.30.0-5.fc40.src.rpm
TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111848558

Build fails due to a bug in rapidjson triggered by gcc-14, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rapidjson/pull-request/4 is needed.
(see -devel mailing list for details)

It does seem to build on copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6911677

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06911677-lfortran/lfortran.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06911677-lfortran/lfortran-0.30.0-4.fc40.src.rpm

Created attachment 2008968 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6869102 to 6911758

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6911758
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229349-lfortran/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06911758-lfortran/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

(In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #28)
> PACKAGE APPROVED.

Thanks

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/59730

@benson_muite I think you have to run fedpkg request-repo, it rejected my request.

In progress. Will make you a co-maintainer once imported.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lfortran

FEDORA-2024-412e63e487 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-412e63e487

FEDORA-2024-8a1e6c9231 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a1e6c9231

FEDORA-2024-dbcbf05ae2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dbcbf05ae2

FEDORA-2024-0cea21197b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0cea21197b

FEDORA-2024-4e07ce309a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e07ce309a

FEDORA-2024-8a1e6c9231 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-8a1e6c9231 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a1e6c9231

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-4e07ce309a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4e07ce309a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e07ce309a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-d47054b393 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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-d47054b393`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d47054b393

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-91f87f358e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-91f87f358e`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-91f87f358e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-91f87f358e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-d47054b393 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.