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=799651 --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-09 10:58:04 EST --- First, this is just the output of the fedora-review tool. So your request should really not go to me, but to the writers of that tool. With that said, I think one aspect of this is that the package installs "private" libraries in public library paths. Since they are installed in /usr/lib{64} they will be found and exposed by the dynamic linker. That might be the reason that rpmlint complains: it basically either want fully versioned libraries (with proper sonames) in /usr/lib etc., or private libs in other directories outside of ld.so's paths (and where even an rpath might be acceptable). Whether this really is the rpmlint perspective, and if this is valid is up to others to judge. I'm just a newbie :) -- 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