[Fedora-packaging] Shared libraries unversioned .so symlinks packaging

[Daniel Letai]

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?