[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote, at 12/11/2010 02:00 AM +9:00:
> 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.

So, when a package
- contains some example scripts
- the packager thinks that such scripts are useful and many people actually
  want to execute them
- but such scripts need additional dependencies
then the packager actually may want to add additional dependencies.

So
- Loosen the guideline to "%doc files should not add "too much" additional
  dependency"
- If executing %doc scripts want some "large" additional dependency, move such scripts
  to somewhere else (out of /usr/share/doc, e.g. %_libdir/%name/examples), 
  or create subpackage like %name-examples
?
(By the way I think in most cases additional dependencies are actually
 not needed)

Regards,
Mamoru