On 2013-08-22 19:20, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw .
The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules),
which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search.
Or even non-versioned shared libs ending with .so, but being ordinary
run-time libs (and no build-time libs for optional -devel packages).
Yes, definitely. We could/should do a better job here, but at the bottom
is f-r's roots in the review process where it's better to warn than not
to, users can handle it. However, this becomes a problem when doing this
kind of bulk tests, too many false warnings. I. e., this is a new
usecase with partly new requirements.
That said, I still think here are also useful findings.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
