https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279527
Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com --- 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.