Question about profile.d scripts definition in Spec file

[Marcin Haba]

On 02.08.2015 12:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> My question is: what is valid answer for this case?
> 
> The explanation is given by "rpmlint -i …".
> 

Hello,

Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location. Please look:

ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is
not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be
configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file.

Above rpmlint output text can be ambiguous because the 'executable'
meaning may treat at least as:

1) have "execute" file permission
2) have "executable" scripting language code
3) ... others?

In case 2) always can use interpreter to execute script. There is not
need to mark "execute" permission on a file. It looks that exactly this
situation we consider for profile.d/ scripts.

Summary is that there are two meaning issues defined in these questions:

A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
B) does in rpmlint aspect non-executable mean 'without execute
permissions' or 'non-executable at all' (directly and by any interpreter) ?

Since I known answer for this specific profile.d script (use %config
macro), I have no longer doubt. Nevertheless the questions A) and B)
still exist not answered for me, but I guess that it is subject to
longer discussion and not here (off-topic).

Best regards.
Marcin Haba


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150802/62bb51fe/attachment.sig>