Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226285 --- Comment #29 from Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-15 09:59:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) > There are spurious provides coming from examples: > > Provides: perl(MyHTML) perl(MyVisitor) indeed. So it seems the messages were almost right: > perl-XML-Grove.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency > /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Grove-0.46alpha/examples/my-html.pl > perl(XML::Parser::PerlSAX) > perl-XML-Grove.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency > /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Grove-0.46alpha/examples/visitor.pl > perl(XML::Parser::PerlSAX) Had it mentioned perl(MyHTML) and perl(MyVisitor), respectively, the messages would have named the problem. But the "rpmlint -i" hint says that it helps to clear the exec bit of the files. This is not true, the bit is cleared, yet the dependency generator brings in the wrong provides. Should I fight against the dependency generator somehow? gzipping the examples, rot13-encoding, renaming them, clearing the #! line or whatever... ??? Or is it enough to file a bug aginst the buggy dependency generator? To sum up, I still apply for the approval of the package in its current state in the cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review