Taking this review.

Please use a "raw" link for the .spec file, like the one you get from a COPR results page, or by clicking the "Raw" button on a GitHub file view.

Otherwise, fedora-review will not be able to process this ticket.

Noted. Updated spec and rebuilt package elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-3:

Spec URL: https://github.com/amz-x/extras/blob/master/rpms/elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding.spec

SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-35-x86_64/03061737-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-3.fc35.src.rpm

COPR BUILD URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/amz/extras/build/3061737/

No, you didn't understand me. The link in *this ticket* should point to a plain .spec file, not an HTML page on GitHub ...

Some more comments:

- You can use %{url} as shortcut for the URL in Source0, no need to spell it out twice

- Use standardized GitHub source URLs, as documented here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

In this case, that would be (without the weird HTML anchor hack):
Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz

- Use a simplified URL for patch:

Patch0:         %{url}/pull/151.patch

- The %config / %config(noreplace) lines in %iles look weird. You're listing the same file twice, but with different (noreplace) settings, and without using macros.

Just use %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{appname}.desktop

Also add validation of this file to %check, like for the other desktop file.

- The order of the files in %files is a bit odd, I usually make them follow alphabetical order as they are on the filesystem, and add those that use macros or flags on top, i.e.

%files
%license COPYING
%doc README.md

%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{appname}.desktop
%{_bindir}/%{appname}

%{_datadir}/applications/%{appname}.desktop
%{_datadir}/metainfo/%{appname}.appdata.xml
%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/%{appname}.gschema.xml
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{appname}.svg

- Changelog is in a weird nonstandard format, use the normal one instead:
  - no leading empty line in %changelog
  - do not put the "- version-release" string onto a separate line, it belongs at the end of the first line

You should take a look at what this command does to see the standard format:
$ rpmdev-bumpspec --comment="Foo"

Manually editing the %changelog is very error-prone, and I'd recommend never doing that.
Instead, just let "rpmdev-bumpspec" handle the job, it generates a correctly formatted entry for you.

I hope 3rd time's the charm.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03061976-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding.spec

SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03061976-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-4.fc36.src.rpm

COPR BUILD URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/amz/extras/build/03061976/

Description: Review Request: elementary-onboarding - Onboarding app for new users on Pantheon DE for Fedora.

Fedora Account System Username: amz

Looks much better now, thanks!

Minor issues:

- "to show no errors in rpmlint results" is not a valid explanation for making changes to a package.
rpmlint is known to show many false positive errors, so if you really think this is a problem, explain the real problem, and not just "rpmlint complains".

Lots of packages install translations for the "mo" locale in Fedora, so this does not seem to be a problem, but rather an issue in rpmlint, because it doesn't recognise this locale code. In contrast, the only two Fedora packages (!) which ship ro_MD locales are elementary-code and elementary-terminal, and it's probably not a good idea there, either ...

I'd say it would be a better idea to drop the PR / patch for now. Most packages in Fedora use "mo" locale instead of "ro_MD" (but I think neither are actually supported, so it doesn't help to change it, either).

- This package uses %define, it should use %global instead.
Unless there's a very good reason, you should *always* use %global, instead of %define.

- I recommend not using "sed" for "monkey-patching" files. Instead, use a real patch.
Real patches break if the file changes, sed scripts just silently do nothing when that happens.

- I recommend using rpmautospec for the package, once it is imported. It will make maintaining the Release field and writing %changelog messages unnecessary in the future. It is documented here, if you're interested:

https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/index.html

I'm using it for all other Pantheon-related packages already. You can look at some of them for how it works.

This package is built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80265098

Made some updates to the spec file. Included patch for autostart.desktop file. 

Informed upstream about this issue on autostart.desktop file, created a issue and PR, more info here: https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/issues/154

___


Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03070436-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding.spec

SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03070436-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-6.fc36.src.rpm

COPR build URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/amz/extras/build/03070436/

Koji scratch build for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80275589

Description: Review Request: elementary-onboarding - Onboarding app for new users on Pantheon DE for Fedora.

Fedora Account System Username: amz

___

Also submitted my 2nd package for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2034532

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

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 221 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/amz/2033757-elementary-onboarding/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2, /usr/share/locale/mo,
     /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
     /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/locale/mo,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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 10240 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[-]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[-]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[-]: 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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/archive/6.1.0/onboarding-6.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8dfcbacebe0309e1b4f207470ac01dfe5695c36bd8b92606033ba2aca89145d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8dfcbacebe0309e1b4f207470ac01dfe5695c36bd8b92606033ba2aca89145d6


Requires
--------
elementary-onboarding (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(elementary-onboarding)
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgranite.so.6()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

elementary-onboarding-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

elementary-onboarding-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
elementary-onboarding:
    application()
    application(io.elementary.onboarding.desktop)
    config(elementary-onboarding)
    elementary-onboarding
    elementary-onboarding(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(io.elementary.onboarding.appdata.xml)

elementary-onboarding-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    elementary-onboarding-debuginfo
    elementary-onboarding-debuginfo(x86-64)

elementary-onboarding-debugsource:
    elementary-onboarding-debugsource
    elementary-onboarding-debugsource(x86-64)

(In reply to Christopher Crouse from comment #7)
> Made some updates to the spec file. Included patch for autostart.desktop
> file. 
> 
> Informed upstream about this issue on autostart.desktop file, created a
> issue and PR, more info here:
> https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/issues/154

This patch is probably not acceptable for upstream, because it would break their installer environment.

I wonder if it would be better (more generic, and also able to be pushed upstream) to use "OnlyShowIn=Pantheon;" insteadof "NoShowIn=Installer;"?

Actually, I did test it with their installer, and it worked. Did not have an issue, but I also agree with adding in "OnlyShowIn=Pantheon;".

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christopher Crouse from comment #7)
> > Made some updates to the spec file. Included patch for autostart.desktop
> > file. 
> > 
> > Informed upstream about this issue on autostart.desktop file, created a
> > issue and PR, more info here:
> > https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/issues/154
> 
> This patch is probably not acceptable for upstream, because it would break
> their installer environment.
> 
> I wonder if it would be better (more generic, and also able to be pushed
> upstream) to use "OnlyShowIn=Pantheon;" insteadof "NoShowIn=Installer;"?

Updated PR and patch.

__

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03123155-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding.spec

SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03123155-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-8.fc36.src.rpm

COPR Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03123155-elementary-onboarding/fedora-review/review.txt

COPR Build URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/amz/extras/build/03123155/

Koji Mock Build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80797886

Upstream accepted pull request and closed related issue.

PR URL: https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/pull/155

Awesome! Thanks for working with upstream on this.

Since you have a PR / upstream commit that you can base your Patch0 on, you can use an "official" URL instead of your own, for example:

Patch0: %{url}/pull/155.patch
or
Patch0: %{url}/commit/baca3e4.patch

(both of those URLs are "special" GitHub URLs that redirect to a .patch file for the given PR or commit, so they also work with "spectool -g")

===

Note that this package also has a problem with NxN@2 scaled icons in hicolor-icon-theme, see the discussion in this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033890#c6

You can use something like "rm -r %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*@2/" in %install to get rid of those only-brokenly-partially-supported icon resolutions.

===

By the way, you don't need to generate additional changelog entries and bump Release for every change you make in the package review.

It would also be fine if you reset the Release to "1%{?dist}" and remove all changelog entries in favor of one that reads "Initial import (#2033757)" when you import it to Fedora, as history of a package prior to inclusion does not matter. But if it helps you to keep track of different versions for the package review, feel free to continue bumping Release and adding changelog entries until package is accepted.

===

Once you address the first two points, the package is very likely ready for approval.

Noted & updated spec. Thank you!

___

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-35-x86_64/03131180-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding.spec

SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/amz/extras/fedora-35-x86_64/03131180-elementary-onboarding/elementary-onboarding-6.1.0-9.fc35.src.rpm

COPR build URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/amz/extras/build/3131180/

Koji rawhide scratch build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80925824

Looks very good to me! Package APPROVED. Full fedora-review output + filled template below.

Note that you still need to go through the rest of the sponsorship process, see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/
and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/

For example, you could do some detailed preliminary package reviews for some other pending packages. Preferably that would be for something that's not meson / vala package like this one, just to show that you understand the basics of at least some packaging stacks (maybe something like autotools/CMake/C, or python, Go, Rust, Ruby ...) and can apply the rules from the Packaging Guidelines successfully.

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

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo,
     /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES

     Reviewer's Note: Broken / deprecated "mo" locale is a known issue for
     years, and cannot easily be locally fixed in individual packages.

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/mo,
     /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES

     Reviewer's Note: Broken / deprecated "mo" locale is a known issue for
     years, and cannot easily be locally fixed in individual packages.

[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/elementary/onboarding/archive/6.1.0/onboarding-6.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8dfcbacebe0309e1b4f207470ac01dfe5695c36bd8b92606033ba2aca89145d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8dfcbacebe0309e1b4f207470ac01dfe5695c36bd8b92606033ba2aca89145d6


Requires
--------
elementary-onboarding (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(elementary-onboarding)
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgranite.so.6()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libhandy-1.so.0(LIBHANDY_1_0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

elementary-onboarding-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

elementary-onboarding-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
elementary-onboarding:
    application()
    application(io.elementary.onboarding.desktop)
    config(elementary-onboarding)
    elementary-onboarding
    elementary-onboarding(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(io.elementary.onboarding.appdata.xml)

elementary-onboarding-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    elementary-onboarding-debuginfo
    elementary-onboarding-debuginfo(x86-64)

elementary-onboarding-debugsource:
    elementary-onboarding-debugsource
    elementary-onboarding-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2033757
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, fonts, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Don't forget to request a repo and import this package. :)

$ fedpkg request-repo elementary-onboarding 2033757
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41538

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-onboarding

FEDORA-2022-19237e1962 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-19237e1962

FEDORA-2022-19237e1962 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-19237e1962 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-19237e1962

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

FEDORA-2022-19237e1962 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.