[plt-scheme] miscaellanous packaging problems with plt-scheme

Hello.

Apart the compilation problem with latest plt and gcc versions, I got 
several packaging policy problems with my plt packages. I'd like 
maintainer input about them, to see how they can be solved.

First, i got tons of warning about development files (*.h and *.c) 
inside package:
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/plt/collects/plot/src/all/plcont.c
devel-file-in-non-devel-package 
/usr/lib/plt/collects/plot/src/all/gd_io_dp.c
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/plt/collects/plot/src/all/plot3d.c
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/plt/collects/compiler/mzc.h
etc...

The policy says that files not mandatory for execution, but only for 
compiling new derived applications, such as static libs and headers have 
to be segregated in a -devel packages. And source files are only needed 
as doc. But some specific packages, such as compilers for instance, need 
those file for standard use. So my question is: should I request an 
exception for plt also, or create a plt-devel package containing them ?


Then I have different errors, mostly about the dynamic libraries:

1)
shared-lib-without-dependency-information 
/usr/lib/plt/collects/plot/compiled/native/i386-linux/fit-low-level.so
shared-lib-without-dependency-information 
/usr/lib/plt/collects/plot/compiled/native/i386-linux/plplot-low-level.so
etc...

2)
E: plt-mzscheme binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/plt/bin/mzscheme 
['/usr/lib']
The binary or shared library defines the `RPATH'. Usually this is a
bad thing because it hard codes the path to search libraries and so it
makes difficult to move libraries around.  Most likely you will find a
Makefile with a line like: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath.

3)
E: plt-mzscheme library-not-linked-against-libc 
/usr/lib/plt/collects/openssl/compiled/native/i386-linux/mzssl.so

4)
zero-length /usr/lib/plt/collects/launcher/sh
zero-length /usr/lib/plt/collects/doc/drscheme/keywords.scm

I'm unable to explain 1), 2) is explained by rpmlint itself, and 3) and 
4) are quite self-explanatory


Full report is available online (with many other packages tough):
http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/stat.cgi?error=all&maintainer=guillomovitch@mandrake.org&sort1=0&sort2=6&warning=all&type=RPMS&type=SRPMS&class=main&class=contrib&view=detailed

Any help appreciated.