https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868848 --- Comment #6 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #5) > > no executables in this package is designed to be called by the user, this package provides > > - QT libraries for other fcitx5 components > > - a qt5 warper > > My apologies, I didn't notice that fcitx5-qt doesn't ship any binaries. > You're completely right! > > I'm still a little confused why does fedora-review claim that > "%{_libdir}/fcitx5" doesn't have an owner when fcitx5-libs clearly owns that > dir in its spec file. Might be because fcitx5-libs is defined as a Requires > and not BuildRequires? don't know. maybe a bug in rpmlint? > > > I think we can ignore all Requires: fcitx5, since autodep will detect the requirement, because the all fcitx5-* is linked to libfcitx5*.so. > > Yes, autodep should identify the dependency based on linking. rpmlint even > warns about that: > fcitx5-qt.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency fcitx5-libs > > I would therefore remove the explicit fcitx5-libs dependency. Removed -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
