Description of problem: When installing with --excludedocs there are errors caused by missing files. Version: gettext-0.17-10.fc11.i586 How reproducible: Always Steps to reproduce: 1) rpm -ihv --excludedocs gettext-0.17-10.fc11.i586 or: - use %packages --excludedocs in kickstart - enable %_excludedocs macro in RPM Expected results: Package is installed without errors Actual results: Error(s): Installing gettext-0.17-10.fc11.i586 install-info: No such file or directory for /usr/share/info/gettext.info.gz Additional info: This bug is automatically filed with python-bugzilla and component assignment may be incorrect.
*** Bug 516003 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The install-info invocations are already protected by " || :". So these are actually only rpm warning messages. Is there anything to do here?
This is not critical error but just warning message and there are lots of them. This can generate lots of unnecessary support calls especially for RHEL products. My proposal to fix this is (in order of preference): 1) Check if the file exists and then call install-info 2) Redirect all output to /dev/null
Okay fair enough though it is a fairly minor case - don't know how many customers even know about --excludedocs. Have you presented the idea to Fedora Packaging Committee? gettext is just using standard install scripts for install-info. IMHO it should be revised first in our packaging standards before we go to change all the current packages in the current distro.
See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-August/msg00028.html
Again Alexander, why don't you post to fedora-packaging mailing list why you want to get this changed and abou your idea about how to change this? As you can see currently on fedora-packaging list the discussion about this stopped. This usually means fedora-packaging member have little interest on this, and I guess unless you comment on fedora-packaging list this discussion won't restart again.
Alexander, if you can propose a workable change to the current recommended install-info packaging scripts and get it approved by FPC that would be good. :) IMHO it should really be done with macros - so that we have consistency across packages and a rebuild ensures that the latest recommended scripts are in use.
*** Bug 515955 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515964 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515986 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515981 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515967 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 516007 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515916 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515937 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515968 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515969 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515972 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515978 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515991 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515993 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515994 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515988 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515979 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515982 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515952 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515956 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515984 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515983 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515996 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515954 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515918 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 516009 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 516004 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 515931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 516757 ***