[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 12/10/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:40:23PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Thomas Moschny wrote, at 12/10/2010 08:19 PM +9:00:
>>> That seems by far the cleanest solution to me. Especially
>>> development-oriented packages often contain example directories;
>>> removing x-bits there only puts extra-burden on someone trying to play
>>> with the examples.
>>
>> Indeed some examples/ directory contains some executable scripts
>> which are useful to understand what the package can do.
>> I think "%doc files must not have executable permissions" must be
>> reverted.
>>
> To my mind, if you have examples that you want to be runnable by the user
> and you want them to not have to perform chmod 0755 to achieve that, you'd
> also want rpm to ensure that the dependencies for those examples are
> installed.

In my mind, examples are descriptions, outlines, demonstrations of 
working principles. As such they don't have to be functional, but should 
also carry "reasonable" permissions.

> So either this guideline is fine or the idea that examples shouldn't drag in
> new deps is where the flaw lies.
Neither. Simply ignore all files below %docdir or if you really insist 
on it, all %doc'ed files, dependency-wise.

In other words, In my view, the cause of all this is rpmbuild taking 
%doc into account for dependency tracking.

Ralf