Repocop reports by srpm

	rpm id	test	status	message
	mono-6.12.0.199-alt2.src	altlinux-policy-obsolete-buildreq	warn	Build dependency on rpm-build-ubt is obsolete and should be dropped to get rid of rpm-build-ubt package.
	mono-core-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64	altlinux-policy-shared-lib-contains-devel-so	info	SharedLibs Policy Draft violation: Shared Lib package should not contain symlink /usr/lib64/libmonosgen-2.0.so but just /usr/lib64/libmonosgen-2.0.so.1.0.0. According to SharedLibs Policy Draft, symlink /usr/lib64/libmonosgen-2.0.so should be placed in a special subpackage named lib-devel. If you have already packaged this symlink in lib-devel, just append \%exclude /usr/lib64/libmonosgen-2.0.so to \%files of mono-core-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64. Otherwise, move the symlink into the subpackage lib-devel. There is a known exception for case the .so file is not a shared lib but a plugin that is never directly linked with. Please report such a case to repocop test. st. o repocop test. se to repocop test.
	mono-core-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64	bin-permissions	info	not executable file /usr/bin/mono-sgen-gdb.py
	mono-core-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64	library-pkgnames	info	package contains public library which is used in external packages: name should be lib* according to http://altlinux.org/Drafts/SharedLibs
	mono-devel-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64	library-pkgnames-static	warn	package contains static library which has the same name as a shared library in the repository, but neither package name ends with -devel-static according to http://altlinux.org/Drafts/SharedLibs nor the package explicitly conflicts with the package with .so library
	mono-monodoc-6.12.0.199-alt2.x86_64	arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share	info	The package has a significant amount of architecture-independent data in /usr/share, while it is an architecture-dependent package. This is wasteful of mirror space and bandwidth, as we then end up with multiple copies of this data, one for each architecture. If the data in /usr/share is not architecture-independent, it is a policy violation, and in this case, you should move that data elsewhere.