Re: Executable example scripts in documentation

[Jonathan Underwood <jonathan underwood gmail com>]

2009/3/6 Dan Horák <dan danny cz>:
> Paul Howarth píše v Pá 06. 03. 2009 v 10:34 +0000:
>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527#c3
>> >
>> > The above review is blocked because I want to include three example
>> > scripts in the documentation, and I want them to be executable so that
>> > people can run them without an unnecessary extra step.
>> >
>> > rpmlint warns about this (spurious-executable-perm).  But I think rpmlint
>> > is wrong.
>> >
>> > There are scant guidelines about this - just one oblique reference in
>> > a "packaging mistakes" page.  There is no convincing explanation I can
>> > find as to why including an executable script in documentation is a
>> > bad thing.
>>
>> They sometimes pull in additional dependencies.
>
> When they are e.g. Perl script, that's the main reason IIRC
>

Couldn't the rpm automatic dependency generator be told to disregard
all files marked as %doc ?