https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #7 from Carl George š¤ <[email protected]> --- > as the code contains some snippets of OpenSSL libcrypto. If this package is going to bundle openssl (even if only partially), there are two MUST requirements [0]. 1. Add the line `Provides: bundled(openssl) = <version>`. 2. Open an issue upstream to request it be possible to build against the system openssl, and add a link to that issue as a comment in the spec file. On a related note, running rpmlint on the installed package generates the following warnings. qatlib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqat.so.0.20.08.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.1 qatlib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libusdm.so.0.20.08.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.1.1 The wiki has some notes on how to resolve this [1]. > On this, what level of detail would you like to see in the changelog for this > phase? > Should we just have a single entry for the initial version of the package? It's ok to consolidate all of the review work into a single changelog entry for the initial package, or you can keep each round of review changes as a separate entry. Your choice. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
