https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #14) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > > - unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings persist. > > I was experimenting with several different options. To > fix this, it would be required to do a complete audit to > know what can be dlopen'ed and patch pkg-config files to > not add unused libraries to its --libs output. > I experimented with some libtool patches as well, but > without patching pkg-config files it will not work very > well. > This would not be trivial, and would need upstream to > correct it; as it is now it is not wrong, just that it > links to, what the direct dependency libraries link to. > Okay. > > Also there are various 'undefined symbol' related to linkages of libipopt > > and libBonCouenne libraries i think, even if libOS.so.6.9.2 seems correctly > > linked to them. > > I did not see any "undefined symbol" log. Please post > an example. The library is linked with -no-undefined, > so, it may have been some false positive. It's my mistake probably. I have consulted 'ldd' on libraries for F23 but in Fedora 22. :P > > > - 'LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license' is a false positive. > > I don't know why comes out. > > I could not find a way to make %license work in rhel5 > BTW, the way it is supposed to fix by redefining %license > to %doc does not work there; it expands the License tag... > > > Overall, I believe at first it would be better to remove > the LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,--as-needed" attempt, and > report upstream about overlinking, what is not really > an error, and the "fixes" for it most times cause > unexpected side effects, and are not applied in upstream > packages. ----- Package approved. -- 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