Quoting Michael Schwendt (2013-08-22 19:20:51) > 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). Fedora-review actually makes a difference between unversioned *so files in libdir and *so files in subdirectory under libdir. It will issue an error for the former and warning for the latter(making check pending - i.e. manual review needed). I've checked a few of the problems found and all of them were packaging bugs IMO. I have personally filed several bugs related to unversioned files (also discovered by f-r). Some of them are files that should be in -devel subpackage, some are "plugins" that should be in private subdirectory...and some are weird exceptions that no tool can automatically know about. -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Developer Experience PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
