Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Curses - Curses bindings for perl
------- Additional Comments From paul(a)city-fan.org 2006-04-24 10:11 EST -------
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Is 1.13-2 acceptable in its current form, or should I not remove the execute
> You could leave the exec bits on. The extra dependencies you get as a result of
> this are:
> * /usr/bin/perl
> * perl(Curses)
> * perl(ExtUtils::testlib)
> perl(Curses) is provided by the package itself, and the other two are provided
> by the main perl package, which is already a dependency of this package. So
> there aren't any new dependencies introduced by leaving the exec bits on.
1) IIRC there are plans to disallowed this in the future (no docs with execution
permissions). Even rpmlint already warns about requirements being pulled in by
W: perl-Curses doc-file-dependency ...
2) Right now the only way to avoid the requirements pulled in by perl modules
(.pm files) shipped as doc is to filter them out.
My point was that although there are "logically" additional deps from having
executable deps, in practice there are in fact no additional deps *in this case*
because the same packages that satisfy the main deps also satisfy the "doc"
deps. Of course that could change if some modules were split out from the main
If at some time in the future rpm doesn't allow executable docs, that's also
fine by me, as is this package, with or without the executable docs.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.