https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #14)
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13)
> - unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings persist.
I was experimenting with several different options. To
fix this, it would be required to do a complete audit to
know what can be dlopen'ed and patch pkg-config files to
not add unused libraries to its --libs output.
I experimented with some libtool patches as well, but
without patching pkg-config files it will not work very
well.
This would not be trivial, and would need upstream to
correct it; as it is now it is not wrong, just that it
links to, what the direct dependency libraries link to.
Okay.
> Also there are various 'undefined symbol' related to
linkages of libipopt
> and libBonCouenne libraries i think, even if libOS.so.6.9.2 seems correctly
> linked to them.
I did not see any "undefined symbol" log. Please post
an example. The library is linked with -no-undefined,
so, it may have been some false positive.
It's my mistake probably. I have consulted 'ldd' on libraries for F23 but in
Fedora 22. :P
> - 'LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license' is a false positive.
> I don't know why comes out.
I could not find a way to make %license work in rhel5
BTW, the way it is supposed to fix by redefining %license
to %doc does not work there; it expands the License tag...
Overall, I believe at first it would be better to remove
the LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,--as-needed" attempt, and
report upstream about overlinking, what is not really
an error, and the "fixes" for it most times cause
unexpected side effects, and are not applied in upstream
packages.
-----
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component