Hi, When building gcc 5.1 rpm (based on f22 spec) to a different prefix I get a list of .so unpackaged files: /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libasan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libatomic.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libcilkrts.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgcc_s.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgfortran.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libgomp.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libitm.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/liblsan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libmpx.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libmpxwrappers.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libobjc.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libquadmath.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libstdc++.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libtsan.so /opt/gnu/gcc/5.1.0/lib64/libubsan.so I know the usual solution is to place such symlinks in the <lib>-devel package, but for most of those libs there is no devel counterpart, so I'm wondering what are best practices in this case. I figure I can 1. Just ignore them (I have %global _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0) 2. Remove them in %install 3. Add them to their respective %files lib 4. Create an %files lib-devel for each one Which is preferred, if at all? As a potential follow-up: If 1 or 3, why bother creating them in the first place? -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
