On 08/22/2012 04:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 08/22/2012 09:09 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
SO> I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I
SO> am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap
SO> (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is
SO> it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.
I would definitely filter it
So would I.
Such provides are supposed to be referring to *.sos in ldd's
search-path. Not filtering would just fillup the rpmdb with bogus
contents and are possible causes for rpm-dep conflicts.
IIRC, such conflicts once had hit some perl modules. For them, filtering
meanwhile is considered mandatory.
Or get rpm to autoprov only on ldpath'd items...
Does ldd pickup non-"lib" prefixed *.sos?
Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
