On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 10:47 +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > 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 ? Generators, plural. There are quite a few of them, and they all need to be modified. Yes, it could be as easy as modifying them to have "-prune %{_defaultdocdir}" in a find call, but then you have to get %{_defaultdocdir} to the script. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
