On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > The immediate result is that highlight is uninstallable because nothing > > provides /bin/lua. We could patch the example file to use > > #!/usr/bin/lua instead, but IMHO it's not reasonable that a mere example > > in the documentation introduces a hard dependency. > > Is this the expected behavior? Shall I file a bug against rpm? > This is a bug. RPM isn't supposed to look for these in documentation > directories. I'm 90% sure that it does anyway, and that the traditional fix is to mark the installed documentation as non-executable. The packaging guidelines seem to support this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation "Files marked as documentation must not cause the package to pull in more dependencies than it would without the documentation. One simple way to ensure this in most cases is to remove all executable permissions from files in %_pkgdocdir." -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
