Bug 2476392

Hmm: 
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/fbuffer.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/object.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/pack.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/pack_template.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/sbuffer.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/sysdep.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/unpack_template.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/version_master.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/vrefbuffer.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/zbuffer.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64
  - file /usr/include/msgpack/zone.h from install of msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64 conflicts with file from package msgpack-devel-3.1.0-23.fc44.x86_64

So I'm going to need to re-work that.

Okay, updated version should fix that by installing into /usr/include/msgpack-c.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10452574
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476392-msgpack-c/srpm-builds/10452574/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.

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~orion/msgpack-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~orion/msgpack-c-6.1.0-1.fc45.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10455707
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476392-msgpack-c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10455707-msgpack-c/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". 24 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/msgpack-
     c/2476392-msgpack-c/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %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 26310 bytes in 5 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.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: msgpack-c-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          msgpack-c-devel-6.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          msgpack-c-6.1.0-1.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/tmpl5p8hcv8')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

msgpack-c.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/msgpack-c/AUTHORS
msgpack-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
msgpack-c.spec:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 11)
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 25 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: msgpack-c-debuginfo-6.1.0-1.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/tmpugjemp_i')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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

msgpack-c.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/msgpack-c/AUTHORS
msgpack-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-c/releases/download/c-6.1.0/msgpack-c-6.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 674119f1a85b5f2ecc4c7d5c2859edf50c0b05e0c10aa0df85eefa2c8c14b796
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 674119f1a85b5f2ecc4c7d5c2859edf50c0b05e0c10aa0df85eefa2c8c14b796


Requires
--------
msgpack-c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

msgpack-c-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    msgpack-c(x86-64)



Provides
--------
msgpack-c:
    libmsgpack-c.so.2()(64bit)
    msgpack-c
    msgpack-c(x86-64)

msgpack-c-devel:
    cmake(msgpack-c)
    msgpack-c-devel
    msgpack-c-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(msgpack-c)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/msgpack-c/2476392-msgpack-c/srpm/msgpack-c.spec	2026-06-08 09:16:57.468856553 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/msgpack-c/2476392-msgpack-c/srpm-unpacked/msgpack-c.spec	2026-05-12 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:		msgpack-c
 Version:	6.1.0
@@ -56,3 +66,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Tue May 12 2026 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 6.1.0-1
+- 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 2476392
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, PHP, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Can the line
cat %_vpath_builddir/Testing/Temporary/LastTest.log
be removed from the spec file? It does not seem useful
on its own, though maybe helpful for debugging.
b) Please change:
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
to
%{_libdir}/libmsgpack-c.so.2{,.*}
c) Please change
%{_libdir}/*.so
to
%{_libdir}/libmsgpack-c.so
c) Can you update to the latest release 7.0.0
https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-c/tags

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~orion/msgpack-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~orion/msgpack-c-7.0.0-1.fc45.src.rpm

I think everything should be addressed.  Thanks for the review!

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10579176
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476392-msgpack-c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10579176-msgpack-c/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". 24 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-
     packaging/reviews/msgpack-c/2476392-msgpack-c/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.
[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 26312 bytes in 4 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.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: msgpack-c-7.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          msgpack-c-devel-7.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          msgpack-c-7.0.0-1.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/tmpxvx0kicz')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

msgpack-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: msgpack-c-debuginfo-7.0.0-1.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/tmp7vjcbjm6')]
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: 2.9.0
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

msgpack-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-c/releases/download/c-7.0.0/msgpack-c-7.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0f1b34a42ea20b35350ad774e56666f64e860ce22d787626f2b3d2ab67061639
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f1b34a42ea20b35350ad774e56666f64e860ce22d787626f2b3d2ab67061639


Requires
--------
msgpack-c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

msgpack-c-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libmsgpack-c.so.2()(64bit)
    msgpack-c(x86-64)



Provides
--------
msgpack-c:
    libmsgpack-c.so.2()(64bit)
    msgpack-c
    msgpack-c(x86-64)

msgpack-c-devel:
    cmake(msgpack-c)
    msgpack-c-devel
    msgpack-c-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(msgpack-c)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2476392
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146407313
b) Consider also packaging:
https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-c/blob/c_master/QUICKSTART-C.md
c) Approved.
d) Review of one of the following would be appreciated if time allows:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440361
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2449979

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/msgpack-c
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/235285`
 you can modify it manually.
Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.