https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258572 --- Comment #16 from Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #9) > (In reply to Sergio Durigan Junior from comment #8) > > Without this %defattr, the shlib is installed with +x (thus generating a > > rpmlint warning). Is there any other way to fix this? > > Which OS are you on? I do not see such warning: Fedora 22. GNU/Linux. > # rpmlint > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > libipt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > libipt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Apparently I have made a confusion about the warnings. The warning is about libipt-devel, not libipt itself. > # rpm -qlvp > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libipt*-1.4.2-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > | grep lib.*.so > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Sep 3 07:06 > /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1 -> libipt.so.1.4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71736 Sep 3 07:06 > /usr/lib64/libipt.so.1.4.0 The file indeed has +x here. I don't consider this good practice, but... > Besides this, such a warning from rpmlint would contradict Fedora > conventions. Should your rpmlint produce an error this would be a bug in > rpmlint. > Though its arguable whether shared libs need to be +x, for historical > reasons, > it's Fedora convention to install shared lib with +x. ... yes, it is a Fedora convention. My mistake. -- 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