Hello, 
while porting some of the fixes from Fedora to RHEL, I am getting bunch of warnings from the RPMinspect like the following (will add a related part of the log as an attachment):

Subpackage blas-devel on aarch64 carries 'Requires: libblas64_.so.3()(64bit)' which comes from subpackage blas64_ but does not carry an explicit package version requirement. Please add 'Requires: blas64_ = %{version}-%{release}' to the spec file to avoid the need to test interoperability between various combinations of old and new subpackages.
 
Suggested remedy:

Add the indicated explicit Requires to the spec file for the named subpackage. Subpackages depending on shared libraries in another subpackage must carry an explicit 'Requires: SUBPACKAGE_NAME = %{version}-%{release}' in the spec file.

These all seem to be related to the 64_ suffix versions of the libraries, introduced in the rhbz#1295965. 


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
rpminspect-fedora -T rpmdeps lapack-3.11.0-5.fc39 (this version seems to report also some of the libraries without the 64_ suffix unlike the lapack-3.9.0-8.el9 on the RHEL)



Edit: I am also getting a bunch of conflicts in our upgradibility tests which seem to be related to this:
 file /usr/lib64/libblas64_.so.3 from install of blas64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package blas64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64
 file /usr/lib64/libcblas64_.so.3 from install of blas64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package blas64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64
 file /usr/lib64/liblapack64_.so.3 from install of lapack64_-3.9.0-9.el9.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lapack64-3.8.0-8.el8.x86_64