Executable example scripts in documentation

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 10:47 +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 2009/3/6 Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz>:
> > Paul Howarth píše v Pá 06. 03. 2009 v 10:34 +0000:
> >> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527#c3
> >> >
> >> > The above review is blocked because I want to include three example
> >> > scripts in the documentation, and I want them to be executable so that
> >> > people can run them without an unnecessary extra step.
> >> >
> >> > rpmlint warns about this (spurious-executable-perm).  But I think rpmlint
> >> > is wrong.
> >> >
> >> > There are scant guidelines about this - just one oblique reference in
> >> > a "packaging mistakes" page.  There is no convincing explanation I can
> >> > find as to why including an executable script in documentation is a
> >> > bad thing.
> >>
> >> They sometimes pull in additional dependencies.
> >
> > When they are e.g. Perl script, that's the main reason IIRC
> >
> 
> Couldn't the rpm automatic dependency generator be told to disregard
> all files marked as %doc ?

Generators, plural. There are quite a few of them, and they all need to
be modified. Yes, it could be as easy as modifying them to have "-prune
%{_defaultdocdir}" in a find call, but then you have to get
%{_defaultdocdir} to the script.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090306/e376d85b/attachment.sig>