On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve G <linux_4ever@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Now the question is do you really want rpmbuild to automatically pull in > >requirements on executables that are used solely in if [ ] shell logic? > > The requirements should be augmented, not replaced by. Using your example on my > RH9 machine: Cough..err um... who cares about what the rh9 machine is giving. Run it against the fc3test1 with develop tree updates or fc2 and you get the netscape showing up, when it should not be. Is this a fault of the patch to bash or the fault of sh2rpms incorrectly seeing netscape inside the if [ -x ] check as being a hard requirement, i've no idea, either way no so good. But lets take a look at those extra deps you say exist. do they really exists as hard deps? Or are that executables buried inside if statement logic. Once you are dealing with if statements can you know algorithmicly if executables called inside those statements are really required? and non executable files whose existance is queried really required? And your script didnt notice the call to sed at all resulting in a true from the if that grep is used in. Script logic parsing gets complicated pretty fast, im not sure how accurate this tool is. I can see it giving a lot of false positive regarding any executable used in an optional if clauses. Netscape and xterm would be the examples here for fc2 and fc3t1 systems i used. AND it seems it gives false negatives regarding calls buried in complicated quoted arguments or command pipes like sed in the xinitrc example in fc2 and fc3t1. The false positives arent so much of a problem, but i would be concerned about people relying heavily on this tool assuming it catches all actual requires without any false negatives. The question is, if this tool gives both false positives and false negatives, is this tool really worth using? If i have to read through xinitrc to catch the call to sed anyways, using a --rpm-requires doesn't save me anytime. If anything if I use this tool, i will be tempted to believe it and not do the full read-through, that's not helpful. Why doesnt exec fvwm2 or exec twm get seen but netscape's call does on my fc2 and fc3t1 systems? That's disturbing. If its not rebust enough to understand executables as arguments to builtin functions or even created functions like what we see in initscripts thats a huge problem, its doing nothing more than finding the easiest requires to find by reading. -jef"is it worth actually filing a bug report about sed being a hard requirement for xinitrc?"spaleta
