https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549281 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- The thing is about disabling brp-mangle-shebangs that if you don't let rpm fix some of those things then you will have to fix them by hand. I can understand not wanting to audit every bit of the massive texlive package, but the < 150 cases in this somewhat less massive package doesn't seem unreasonable. And we are trying to crack down on various classes of shebang-related issues, so I wouldn't think it proper to just ignore it because it's texlive. But one thing of note is that none of the mangled scriptlets are anywhere in the usual path; they're all under the dumpster fire that is /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist. So, uh, maybe we could just compromise on this? %global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude_from /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/(scripts|doc) That way it won't set off any flags for disabling the script completely, and if anything with an errant shebang does get installed outside of those two paths in the future, it will be fixed up. With the current package, that results in no changes as far as I can tell. Even then, there is a bunch of stuff down in there that really does need to get fixed up at some point. The stuff in "doc" really shouldn't matter (or things are really messed up). The python stuff is probably all going to break, all of the env stuff is fragile and depends on what the user has in their PATH, and the scripts which legitimately have no shebang line are just hideous. (The old "valid as both sh and perl" hack is used in some.) I just have no idea if any of that stuff ever gets executed. I guess we can assume that the executable ".bat" things don't ever get called. You could also just do %global __brp_mangle_shebangs_exclude ^$ to keep it from removing the executable bits when no shebang line is found, as a few of those are actually valid. The fixups that are left are all things that need to get done at some point in any case. The rest does look pretty much OK. Some nitpicks which I won't quibble over but which vim yells about when I open the spec: The texlive-arara package has eight bundled(*) provides; it would be nice to get versions on those if at all possible. There are some tab indents around line 6673. The rest of the spec seems to use space indents, though it's two spaces in some places and eight in others. Vim complains about a few trailing spaces, but most people don't care. That's all I can think of. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
