Hans de Goede schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 09.03.2007 14:43, Ralf Ertzinger wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:04:27 +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >>>> On a x86_64 full installation there are 470 binaries with /usr/lib64 >>>> in RPATH. That looks like a lot of work to have this fixed and >>>> maintained. Maybe a chrpath script could be used in the build process, >>>> and remove automatically the obvious cases like /usr/lib64, >>>> /usr/local/lib and @RPATH@ ? >>> The right way would be to file bugs against the packages, I think. >> The right way IMHO would be to enable the rpath checks on the buildsys, >> so the build fails if rpath show up that are not whitelisted in the spec >> file. Then way people notice the rpath and in most cases fix them; new >> rpath further get noticed immediately, and we all save time as we don#t >> have to file bugs :-) . >> The checks are *iirc* enabled for the Extras builders. We should make >> sure they get enabled for the new Fedora builders, too. > rpmlint catches this, I'm sitll in favor of running rpmlint after a build, > check the output against a whitelist of allowed output and if there is any > output not in the whitelist, fail the build. We would need to integrate the > same use of rpmlint in make <arch> from makefile.common then (or maybe first). Sounds fine, too. Cu thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
