https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096138 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng <i@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2) > There are some rpmlint errors that IMHO should not happen (rpath) and README > file should not be executable: > > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/asdcp-test > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/kmuuidgen > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/blackwave > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/j2c-test > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/asdcp-info > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/asdcp-wrap > ['/usr/lib64'] Fixed. > asdcplib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libasdcp-1.12.58.so /usr/lib64/libssl.so.10 > asdcplib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libasdcp-1.12.58.so /usr/lib64/libexpat.so.1 > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/lib64/libasdcp-1.12.58.so ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/klvsplit > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libkumu-1.12.58.so /lib64/libssl.so.10 > asdcplib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libkumu-1.12.58.so /lib64/libm.so.6 Fixed. > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/kmfilegen > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/kmrandgen > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/asdcp-unwrap > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/klvwalk > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/asdcp-util > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wavesplit > ['/usr/lib64'] > asdcplib.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/asdcplib/README Fixed. > Additionally I am wondering about non-conform library soname/versioning: > - /usr/lib64/libasdcp-1.12.58.so > - /usr/lib64/libkumu-1.12.58.so > Is this really correct and expected? Usually it is libfoo.so.1.2.3 or so. That's defined by upstream , I, unlikely will change that. We have some packages with such naming, like libcutl. > asdcplib-1.12.58/src/KM_tai.cpp and asdcplib-1.12.58/src/KM_tai.h are under > public domain not BSD...shouldn't this be added to license tag? I will ask upstream. SRPM won't be attached until the license problem is clear. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review