Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/msgpack-c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/msgpack-c-6.1.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: MessagePack is a binary-based efficient object serialization library. It enables to exchange structured objects between many languages like JSON. But unlike JSON, it is very fast and small.
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.`.