rpmlint - errors safely to ignore

Axilleas Pi axilleaspi at ymail.com
Tue Jul 2 12:48:00 UTC 2013

Hi all,

I am in the process of an informal review attempt of rugged [0] and I 
bumped into some errors that rpmlint found and could be false positives. 
I would like your opinion.

1) explicit-lib-dependency libgit2
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put 
unneeded explicit Requires: tags.

I have found only this section in the wiki[1] which is a little 
relevant, but some example would be better.

2) non-standard-executable-perm 
/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so 0775L

The permissions of all libraries I have in /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/ are 755 
so I guess it is safe to ignore.

3)  arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share 
This package installs an ELF binary in the /usr/share  hierarchy, which 
is reserved for architecture-independent files.

Additionally to 3, running mock it shows that:
DEBUG: *** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked:
DEBUG: /usr/share/gems/gems/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rugged/rugged.so
DEBUG: and /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so

Are they both needed, is it safe to ignore?

Thank you,

[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927374
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.github.io

More information about the ruby-sig mailing list