Executable example scripts in documentation

[Jonathan Underwood]

2009/3/6 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:47:34AM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> 2009/3/6 Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz>:
>> > Paul Howarth píše v Pá 06. 03. 2009 v 10:34 +0000:
>> >> 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 ?
>
> Isn't pulling in dependencies a good thing?  As with keeping the
> examples executable, it helps people who want to run them.
>
> If the extra deps are a problem, then they should be treated just the
> same way as any other package that has too many dependencies -- by
> creating subpackages.

Right. So maybe the guideline should look something like:

It's permissable to include executable example scripts in the main
packages docdir (%doc) as long as they don't cause additional package
dependencies. If the example scripts do cause extra dependencies to be
pulled in, either remove the executable bit, or package the examples
in a separate subpackage (eg. foo-examples).

J.