On 08/22/2012 04:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 08/22/2012 09:09 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky
> SO> I came upon this when runnning fedora-review on this package. Now I
> SO> am wondering: Is this a packaging problem in bind-dyndb-ldap
> SO> (i.e. it has provides for private shared unversioned library) or is
> SO> it OK? The so file is outside ldpath so that's not an issue.
> I would definitely filter it
So would I.
Such provides are supposed to be referring to *.sos in ldd's
search-path. Not filtering would just fillup the rpmdb with bogus
contents and are possible causes for rpm-dep conflicts.
IIRC, such conflicts once had hit some perl modules. For them, filtering
meanwhile is considered mandatory.
Or get rpm to autoprov only on ldpath'd items...
pickup non-"lib" prefixed *.sos?