2009/3/6 Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz>:
Paul Howarth píše v Pá 06. 03. 2009 v 10:34 +0000:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527#c3
> >
> > The above review is blocked because I want to include three example
> > scripts in the documentation, and I want them to be executable so that
> > people can run them without an unnecessary extra step.
> >
> > rpmlint warns about this (spurious-executable-perm). But I think rpmlint
> > is wrong.
> >
> > There are scant guidelines about this - just one oblique reference in
> > a "packaging mistakes" page. There is no convincing explanation I
can
> > find as to why including an executable script in documentation is a
> > bad thing.
>
> They sometimes pull in additional dependencies.
When they are e.g. Perl script, that's the main reason IIRC
Couldn't the rpm automatic dependency generator be told to disregard
all files marked as %doc ?