On Saturday 11 December 2010, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > could you folks add an rpmlint check that > spits a warning for executable %doc files? rpmlint already does and has done for a long time even better than that: it not only issues exactly those warnings (spurious-executable-perm), but it also emits additional warnings for files marked as documentation that add dependencies to a package (doc-file-dependency). I intend to further improve that upstream by omitting the spurious-executable-perm warning for files that look like ones that do benefit from being executable. The fact that rpmlint's unit of work is a single package means that it doesn't know about the package's dependency chain which results in some false positives being reported (the most common of which, /bin/sh, is already filtered out in the Fedora rpmlint config), but that's not a big deal and these can usually easily be checked and verified as false positives by packagers. In my opinion the guideline should be something like this instead of blindly banning executable %doc files: "Files marked as documentation must not cause additional dependencies that aren't satisfied by the package itself or its dependency chain as it would be if none of its files marked as documentation were included in the package." By the way, just banning executable %doc files covers only part of the intent (assuming I understand the intent correctly). For example, install a *.pm Perl module as %doc (executable or not) and you'll get the autodetected dependencies for it in the package. The above suggested alternative guideline would cover those cases as well as the executable doc case where they matter. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
