Bug 76418
| Summary: | find-requires considers %doc files! | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | Ronald Cole <ronald> |
| Component: | rpm-build | Assignee: | Jeff Johnson <jbj> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 8.0 | CC: | ed-keyword-bugzilla.redhat.com.4b59cf, mitr |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i686 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2002-10-25 23:04:26 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Ronald Cole
2002-10-21 15:49:19 UTC
Dependencies are generated only if the execute bit is set. Turn off the execute bit, dependencies won't be generated. "NOTABUG"?!? Excuse me? Please explain, in Red Hat's estimable opinion, how a sample perl script with the execute bit set and listed as %doc has any bearing on a *real* package dependency! Better yet, provide *one* real-world example!! It would seem obvious, once one thinks about it for even a moment, that if the package *really* required it to function, then it would be in a %file and not a %doc. Who cares what the permissions are on a documentation file? If a %doc file is an example shell script, you bet I'm going to set the execute bit so that color ls can give me a visual clue. Yes, even an execute bit can serve as documentation, imagine that!! I even looked in the maximum rpm docs on disc 6 to see if this "new" behavior was even documented; and if it is, I couldn't find it! This *new* "undocumented feature" in rpm 4.1 is one that seems ill conceived... One should continue to be allowed to use file permissions as documentation and not have to worry about find-requires finding out and thinking it's some kind of *real* package dependency!! It's NOTABUG because it's a package, not rpm, error.
The described fix is the behavior for all versions of rpm,
not rpm-4.1, the behavior has not changed in a Very Long Time.
The only new behavior is autogenerating perl dependencies,
which can be disabled (re-establishng the previous behavior
of rpm) by doing
chmod -x /usr/lib/rpm/perl.{prov,req}
Ack! Are you actually grokking what I'm writing? Apparently not... so I'll summarize for you. 1. having find-requires finding perl dependencies is *GOOD* (been a long time coming)! 2. having find-requires searching %doc for package dependencies is *BAD*! Now to address your quite terse responses: 1. A bug that's been around for a long time is *still* a bug and not a "feature by tenure". 2. The "new" behavior of find-requires (finding perl dependencies) for package %files (the package "proper") isn't the problem... the problem is find-requires thinking that actual package dependencies should be discovered in package %docs (the package documentation)!! find-requires says "# --- Grab the file manifest and classify files." Obviously, it's mis-classifying perl scripts in documentation as part of the functional package when it's very obviously classified in the spec file as *DOCUMENTATION*. It *IS* a bug. Now, if Red Hat simply won't fix it, then close it as "WONTFIX" and not as "NOTABUG"! At least that will serve to actually document this (undesirable) behavior SOMEWHERE!! |