As I wrote in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-August/010904.html:

| I think enough investigation is finding out whether it happens with plain
| rpmlint or only with fedora-review and then choose the component to report
| against as appropriate.

This report is against rpmlint but the reproducer is written using fedora-review. And the pointer to the review this occurred with is to a x86_64 package review but the reproducer uses an i686 root.

I downloaded https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/cppformat_1.1.0/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm and built it locally using mock for rawhide x86_64, and running rpmlint from rpmlint-1.7-1.fc22.noarch on x86_64 F22 does not output that 

$ /usr/bin/rpmlint ./cppformat-*x86_64.rpm
cppformat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cppformat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cppformat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Nor does it when the cppformat package is installed:
$ /usr/bin/rpmlint cppformat
cppformat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Please provide a reproducer using plain rpmlint, and more details about the environment. If it involves binary rpms, also post the rpms for examination somewhere.

I am not familiar enough with rpmlint and fedora-review to understand why it's only happening when done in fedora-review, so I moved it to fedora-review in hopes that someone one on that end of things can figure what the source of the problem is.

Hm... Testing rpmlint in the buildroot after installing the new cppformat package:

$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --shell
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 1.8 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpm -q cppformat
cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc24.x86_64
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint cppformat
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
cppformat.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 libformat.so.1()(64bit)
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3#
/usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 

I. e., fedora-review does nothing but reflects the output from mock. This is seemingly not a fedora-review bug.

What I cannot understand is why rpmlint states that /usr/lib64/libformat.so... is in a private path. After all, /usr/lib64 is well-known ld.so path, right?

Oddities:

mock-chroot>sh-4.3# ls /usr/bin/python*
/usr/bin/python3  /usr/bin/python3.5  /usr/bin/python3.5m

<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# ls /etc/ld.so.conf.d
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# 

Sorry, but unless this bug is moved to another component like rpmlint I will close it as not-a-bug.

Admittedly, I was too lazy. Complete reproducer:

$ wget  https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/cppformat_1.1.0/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
$ rpmbuild --rebuild cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --init
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --install rpmlint
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --install /home/al/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cppformat-1.1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
$ mock -r  fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --shell
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# rpmlint cppformat
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
cppformat.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 libformat.so.1()(64bit)
cppformat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
<mock-chroot>sh-4.3# logout

(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4)
> Admittedly, I was too lazy. Complete reproducer:

Thanks. See bug 1243292 comment 10.

OK, the "sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory" message seems to be taken care of in bug #1243292.

Now, here is still the warning "W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libformat.so...". This basically says that the provided library libformat.so doesn't live in a path known by ld.so, right? If so, isn't this nonsense?

Yep, now that I could reproduce it, that's fixed in rpmlint upstream: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/commit/4e8657f47fb15b7a871b88054d15ea1141dd55b3

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b4da76610b

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1153251876

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-037f1f4db5

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1153251876

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-037f1f4db5

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

rpmlint-1.8-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.