[lug] rpm spec: ldconfig-symlink

D. Stimits stimits at comcast.net
Mon Jul 18 16:44:20 MDT 2005

> Seems like you should treat rpmlint more like a tool to help you see and 
> think about your package and less like it has to always be "clean". 
> Perhaps that's why there's no documentation for it?  Or is rpmlint 
> somehow involved in the build process and stopping it?

I think you are right on this. At this time I know my package works 
right and provides the proper things. I worry about rpmlint in part 
because the fedora-extras wiki asks that rpmlint be used. Another part 
of me feels like an rpmlint warning is the same as fingernails scraping 
on a chalkboard...my programmer half wants to scream at a single 
warning, but packaging is forcing me to consider a "new model" of 
thinking (as in "packaging is not an exact science").

At this point I know for a fact that rpmlint has a few bugs, e.g., it 
can't properly detect relocatable code in libraries compiled with gcc 4. 
I sent a note to a listed maintainer, but I doubt I'll get a reply.

D. Stimits, stimits AT comcast DOT net

More information about the LUG mailing list