[Fedora-packaging] [RFR] Handling of %doc files

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Wed Nov 16 21:42:36 UTC 2005

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:23 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> ville.skytta at iki.fi (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 :(

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list