On Thursday 06 November 2008, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> Is it not better to do it in RPMLint with appropriate
exceptions?
>
> Perhaps it would be a better option to separate this test from rpmlint
> (without stretching definitions of 'lint'). Payloading binaries isn't
an
> RPM problem per se but more of a Packaging definition issue and,
> probably optional hence.
RPMLint does check for strange file permissions within the tarballs
which are part of the SRPMs. eg., non-644 bits for a C/C++ files.
Not really, IIRC. It just checks permissions of packaged files, and some
source files in tarballs often propagate to -debuginfo packages with
those "strange" permissions intact, and /that/ is something it'll warn
about.