2009/3/6 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx>: > 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 ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
