On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:23 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > ville.skytta@xxxxxx (Ville Skyttä) writes: > > The check doesn't do recursive depsolving (nor do I think it should), > > ie. it will generate noise about things pulled in by other dependencies. > > rpmlint operates on a single package only without having a view about > the available repository. Of course. > But rpmlint creates other > false positives too and because there is not automatic process > behind, this would be a cosmetic effect only. Well, past and existing bad behaviour is IMO not a reason to add more of it, and a lot of rpmlint _is_ about cosmetic issues :]. I have this now in my local version: printWarning(pkg, "%%doc file '%s' creates possible additional dependency '%s'" % (f, dep)) > Obviously, solving this isssue would be a very interesting task. But it > would be also complicated because you have to deal with ranges; Sure. Dunno if it's worth spending much time on though. > But these versioned deps are pretty useless with the current rpm epoch > mechanism. The perl autodep generator does not know about existing > epochs and rpm does not allow to require a certain upstream version > (non-existing epoch is always assumed as '0') Actually it does know some, but the implementation is so bitrotten that it has been practically useless already for a while, see around line 200 in /usr/lib/rpm/perl.req. > > Thoughts? Enrico, did you send this upstream already? > > Yes, sent it to flepied at mandriva. Cool, let me know if you get a response, my rpmlint patch pile is growing painfully large and is about to grow some more, and I haven't heard back from him in a few monthts :( -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging