On Friday 06 March 2009, Paul Howarth wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, rpmlint has a separate "doc-file-dependency" check for that.