Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/libE57Format.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1452/146111452/libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146111412 Description: Library for reading & writing the E57 file format Fedora Account System Username: ypsvlq This is a dependency of FreeCAD, which I intend to unretire. The test suite is not used because it affects how the library is built (internal symbol visibilty).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666- libE57Format/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 32443 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libE57Format-devel-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp94pz8cjg')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libE57Format.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') libE57Format.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') libE57Format.spec: W: no-%check-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libE57Format-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3gzn0645')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/asmaloney/libE57Format/archive/v3.3.0/libE57Format-v3.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0ba6de5c2ff6122c847867e81bf3f987b43ce4116b4949550c9cda277099e796 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ba6de5c2ff6122c847867e81bf3f987b43ce4116b4949550c9cda277099e796 Requires -------- libE57Format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxerces-c-3.3.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libE57Format-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libE57Format(x86-64) libE57Format.so.3()(64bit) Provides -------- libE57Format: libE57Format libE57Format(x86-64) libE57Format.so.3()(64bit) libE57Format-devel: cmake(e57format) libE57Format-devel libE57Format-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666-libE57Format/srpm/libE57Format.spec 2026-06-01 06:33:21.000069058 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666-libE57Format/srpm-unpacked/libE57Format.spec 2026-05-31 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: libE57Format Version: 3.3.0 @@ -52,3 +62,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun May 31 2026 John Doe <packager> - 3.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2483666 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) A bundled copy of CRCPP is used. Just finished importing crcpp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268776 Testing to see if this can be used instead. b) Fedora has a Google Test package: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/gtest/ Testing to see if this can be used.
https://github.com/asmaloney/libE57Format/pull/346
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10530692 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483666-libe57format/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10530692-libE57Format/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.
Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/libE57Format.spec Thanks for packaging CRCpp and submitting the upstream fix. Yesterday I thought there was an issue with the tests but I must have misread something. It did uncover that libE57Format isn't endian clean though. I added an ExcludeArch as the changes needed are quite invasive and not something I am comfortable doing.
Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/libE57Format.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1523/146131523/libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146131494 [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2143708 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10530692 to 10530926
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10530926 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483666-libe57format/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10530926-libE57Format/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.
Build failure due to missing crcpp-static, it built in Koji though.
Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/libE57Format.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6687/146196687/libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146196684 (using current upstream PR for external CRCpp)
Created attachment 2143943 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10530926 to 10551959
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10551959 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483666-libe57format/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10551959-libE57Format/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 Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666- libE57Format/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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 32443 bytes in 2 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. [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. [ ]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libE57Format-devel-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpyxdr25gd')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libE57Format.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') libE57Format.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libE57Format-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvhi_gux8')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/asmaloney/libE57Format/archive/v3.3.0/libE57Format-v3.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0ba6de5c2ff6122c847867e81bf3f987b43ce4116b4949550c9cda277099e796 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ba6de5c2ff6122c847867e81bf3f987b43ce4116b4949550c9cda277099e796 https://github.com/asmaloney/libE57Format-test-data/archive/bbcacec05d60f923869545c5eab33d94c390d50e/libE57Format-test-data-bbcacec05d60f923869545c5eab33d94c390d50e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d58e2eaed8227d8bee090a35f0a20d2d98f056a952b81014f5e2b4ca96900402 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d58e2eaed8227d8bee090a35f0a20d2d98f056a952b81014f5e2b4ca96900402 Requires -------- libE57Format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxerces-c-3.3.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libE57Format-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libE57Format(x86-64) libE57Format.so.3()(64bit) Provides -------- libE57Format: libE57Format libE57Format(x86-64) libE57Format.so.3()(64bit) libE57Format-devel: cmake(e57format) libE57Format-devel libE57Format-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666-libE57Format/srpm/libE57Format.spec 2026-06-09 08:40:00.438833937 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libE57Format/2483666-libE57Format/srpm-unpacked/libE57Format.spec 2026-06-03 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global test_data_version bbcacec05d60f923869545c5eab33d94c390d50e @@ -67,3 +77,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jun 03 2026 John Doe <packager> - 3.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2483666 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Seems ok. Maybe raise an issue upstream that builds fail on big endian architectures? b) Consider adding the documentation, will add a spec file that does this. Not required though, but would be nice to have. c) Approved. d) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2480534 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2480697 would be appreciated if time allows.
Created attachment 2144797 [details] Spec file that builds documentation
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libE57Format Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/389661` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-7157ecdc40 (libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-7157ecdc40
FEDORA-2026-7157ecdc40 (libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a (libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a
FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-628e46e33a (libE57Format-3.3.0-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.