Bug 1476594
| Summary: | rpm: Extracts dependencies from shbang lines in /usr/share/doc | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Florian Weimer <fweimer> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 27 | CC: | ffesti, igor.raits, kardos.lubos, mattdm, mjw, packaging-team-maint, pmatilai, ppisar, praiskup, vmukhame |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-11-30 22:17:44 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Florian Weimer
2017-07-30 15:28:33 UTC
It does seem like it would be nice if examples in docs directories _just worked_. Is it crazy to suggest that RPM should not ignore docs, but instead add Recommends where there isn't already a Requires? (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #1) > It does seem like it would be nice if examples in docs directories _just > worked_. Is it crazy to suggest that RPM should not ignore docs, but instead > add Recommends where there isn't already a Requires? Actually adding Recommends instead of Requires for %doc files sounds good to me. If Florian or Panu like this idea, I'm willing to submit a patch. Well, the Requires should go away if you remove the executable bit in the installroot. You can keep it executable in the package by setting attr if that's the desired result. (In reply to Florian Festi from comment #3) > Well, the Requires should go away if you remove the executable bit in the > installroot. You can keep it executable in the package by setting attr if > that's the desired result. The point of Matt's proposal is to *do* generation of such dependencies, but in forms of *Recommends* rather than Requirements for all files marked as %doc. From my POV it is nice suggestion even not trivial to implement though. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle. Changing version to '27'. rpm 4.14.0 actually filters out dependencies from docdir (see bug 964126). I'm not a big fan of this because ... like Matt says, if the docs are marked executable then they should runnable too, and that simply requires the dependencies to be present. But people have disagreed over this about as long as rpm has existed, there must be over a dozen bugs on this topic just on RH bugzilla. Creating weak dependencies for docs seems like a nice middle-ground to me too, although I'm sure we'll find people who disagree with that too... As for the original topic of this bug though, this gets mildly hysterical: Like said, rpm 4.14.0 filters requires from docdirs out by default. However because highlight uses the deprecated %filter_setup macros (among other things to filter out this unwanted lua-dependency), it doesn't benefit from the docdir filtering which only works with the internal dependency generator. Yeah, only in rpm :) In my opinion, no runtime dependency should be ever generated from %doc files (all %doc files, so the whitelist for %docdir is incomplete to me). If we do so, we should at least ensure that '--nodocs' and yum's/dnf's equivalents counts with that; e.g. that turning on --nodocs means that the additional (weak)deps are ignored. This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '27'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 27 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-11-30. Fedora 27 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |