On 12/10/2010 07:03 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ville Skyttà wrote: >> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote: >> >>> The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not >>> have executable permissions. >> >> Why? If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't >> already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved by this >> guideline, and how do you propose handling these files instead? >> > > Wouldn't it be better if this issue is solved on the rpmbuild side > instead of putting it as extra work on packagers? IMO, yes. > rpmbuild can call either chmod -x on the %doc files at the end; or if > the problem is just the dependencies added by executable %doc files, > then rpmbuild can be taught to not scan the %doc files for generating > dependencies. If no, why not? Agreed, something along these lines would be superior. It also would help another issue: Packages would "automatically be fixed" when they will be rebuilt. Now, if Spot is consequent, he will have to enforce this guideline explictly and manually [1] Ralf [1] According to a check, I performed last Monday, 272 packages (src.rpms) in rawhide are affected. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
