[Fedora-packaging] Executable documentation
paul at city-fan.org
Mon Feb 26 13:41:19 UTC 2007
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Saturday 24 February 2007, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> For some time I've been working under the assumption that executable
>> documentation is a bad idea. rpmlint complains when documentation
>> generates dependencies, and these dependencies are often needless
>> Lately I'm getting pushback when asking for a quick chmod -x of docs.
>> The usual argument is "It's an example, it's supposed to be
>> executable." Currently I don't see anything in the guidelines that
>> would forbid this as long as it doesn't cause extra dependencies.
>> So, is there concensus that allowing documentation to be executable is
>> OK? Or is it something that should be prohibited.
> I don't see anything wrong with including example scripts etc as executable if
> they're useful and can be executed as is and don't result in additional
> Note that rpmlint does try to check if a dependency from docs is an additional
> one or not and suppresses output if it's not, however it doesn't do any
> depsolving which results in some warnings that can be argued to be false
> positives. Warnings about doc dependencies such as eg. /bin/sh for any
> package, or /usr/bin/perl for things that already require perl(...) can IMO
> be ignored.
> But the packager needs to keep an eye on possble future package splits etc
> which may result in the doc dependency previously indirectly satisfied by
> other dependencies in the package no longer resulting in that, and to act
> accordingly when/if that happens.
I agree entirely. So long as the packager is aware of the issues
involved and keeps on top of them when updating etc.
Disclaimer: I have at least one package with executable docs, so I'm not
More information about the Fedora-packaging