Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773485 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-11 19:51:12 EST --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: I have a question N: not applicable MUST: [=] rpmlint output: I ran rpmlint on the installed packages, not on the binary RPMs, as that enables some more checks ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibnlparse ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2psl.pl ibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump2slvl.pl ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_create ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_cancel ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 pthread_detach ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibmscli.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibsysapi.so.1.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibsysapi.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 linux-vdso.so.1 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libdl.so.2 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libm.so.6 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdm.so.1.1.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 linux-vdso.so.1 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 /lib64/libm.so.6 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libibdmcom.so.1.1.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation ibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. So libibmscli.so should be linked with -lpthread, and there is unnecessary linkage. The latter can be solved by adding -Wl,--as-needed to LDFLAGS. Also, please ask upstream about eliminating calls to exit() in the shared libraries. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [-] license file is included in %doc: it is, but in the main package. It should be in the -libs package instead, since that can be installed without the main package. [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 82c7e95508f38caec4e8b8b5437598e0 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [?] appropriate use of ExcludeArch: what is the reason for the ExclusiveArch? [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [-] static libraries in -static: the static libraries are in -libs [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contain available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [?] package functions as described: don't know how to test [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts: yes, except for the 3 that rpmlint complained about -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review