https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #2)
Questions from package review:
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in
Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers?
I have never seen this before, will dig.
[?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path?
How do I verify?
All Python extension modules produce this bogus report from Fedora Review.
/usr/lib64/python*/* is not in ld path. This is not an issue. You can verify
with:
$ ld --verbose | grep SEARCH_DIR
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib64");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib");
SEARCH_DIR("=/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib");
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277759
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...