The automatic provides can contain false positives. For a real-life example, see bug #197460. The problem can be demonstrated like this: $ yum install libgtk-java ... $ /usr/lib/rpm/perl.prov /usr/share/doc/libgtk-java-2.8.5/examples/packbox/Packbox.java perl(packbox) $ /usr/lib/rpm/perldeps.pl --provides /usr/share/doc/libgtk-java-2.8.5/examples/packbox/Packbox.java perl(packbox) Two ideas came to my mind: 1) When detecting provides, *.java files should be skipped. (Or, more generally, perl.prov, perl.req, and perldep.pl should silently skip obvious non-perl files.) 2) The automatic provides/requires mechanism should ignore %doc files. (The package should work even if it is installed without the documentation.) IMHO both of the above should be implemented.
Are the .java files marked as +x, if so then they probably should be installed as 644 which will cause the automatic provides/requires to be skipped. This sounds like a packaging bug with the examples, as unlike example scripts .java files are not executable so should never be marked as such.
The *.java files do not have +x flag set. The spec file contains: %files %doc doc/examples and the _directory_ doc/examples has +x set, of course. This might trigger the bug...
OK the problem actually may lie in the fact file /usr/share/doc/libgtk-java-2.8.6/examples/packbox/Packbox.java /usr/share/doc/libgtk-java-2.8.6/examples/packbox/Packbox.java: Perl5 module source text As the files start with I'll try figure if we can work around here.
User pnasrat's account has been closed
Reassigning to owner after bugzilla made a mess, sorry about the noise...
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
AFAIK this bug is still valid -- rpm's perl autoprov/dep generators are still a touch off in certain situations.
thanks for your update
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. 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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. 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 prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 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 please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. 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. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle. Changing version to '12'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
I suppose this is bug in packaging. According to our guidelines documentation must be non-executable. Even tests must be non-executable if they are installed as documentation. Therefore it is not scanned for requires.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Oh dear! This is ancient. Guess the overall situation has not improved that much. But without a concreate, contemporary case nothing is going to happen. Closing now.