https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279527 Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- New round of the review. I'm just going to pick the non-addressed / new issues. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmocore-debuginfo This looks like a bug in fedora-review/rpm to me... Or am I missing something? (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > (In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #2) > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > ---------------------------- > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) > > libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > > /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) > > > > I have no idea if these are valid complaints or fedora-review just had a > > brain-fart... > > > I can't reproduce these, no idea why they were flagged as private shared > objects. The shared objects are public and they are in the right location. > Could you provide more details regarding this? Well, I saw those errors in the review log. I can't see them in the new version, so I blame it on the fedora-review tool:) All issues appear to have been addressed. Approving. -- 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