On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 10:47 +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
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 ?
Generators, plural. There are quite a few of them, and they all need to
be modified. Yes, it could be as easy as modifying them to have "-prune
%{_defaultdocdir}" in a find call, but then you have to get
%{_defaultdocdir} to the script.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed