Description of problem: I've just received a 'Broken dependencies' email about one of my packages, perl-Bot-BasicBot: perl-Bot-BasicBot has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch requires perl(URI::Title) perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch requires perl(URI::Find::Simple) On i386: perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch requires perl(URI::Title) perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch requires perl(URI::Find::Simple) -- The package doesn't need those modules at all. They are only used in 'examples' %doc directory in *.pl files with 0644 permissions. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Possibly rpm-4.9.1.2-10.fc17+ How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Build perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2 in f17 Actual results: 'rpm -q --requires -p perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch.rpm' lists bogus dependencies from 'examples'. Expected results: %doc data or non-executable files aren't scanned for dependencies.
Adding %{?perl_default_filter} seem the spec seems to fix this. I don't understand why, because I was under the impression it should not be necessary anymore? Seems to me, if the converse applies: To be on the safe side, %{?perl_default_filter} now is mandatory.
(In reply to comment #1) > I don't understand why, because I was under the impression it should not be > necessary anymore? It shouldn't. I didn't look into that but rpm-4.9.1.2-10 (according to %changelog) and the following rebuild might be the cause. Note perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-1 was okay.
BTW: Building *-2 for f16 (Take out the >= 6.62 from BR: perl(POE::Component::IRC) ) doesn't expose the issue, while building for current rawhide does. When taking http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12392 into account and combining it with what you say, the cause of this issue is underneath or in rawhide's rpm and was introduced by a change having been introduced to rpm between 2011-08-05 and today and NOT necessarily related to rpm-4.9.
Yes, it's possible it happened earlier but I suppose we'd notice that in reviews (if the reviewer checks final koji rpm requirements). At least that's what I hope for. Anyway, there's a good chance we've got some packages with redundant dependencies now... *sigh*
Upon closer inspection of the macros, I am fairly sure the perl_default_filters macro only works if explicitly expanded from inside of a spec file. AFAIU, the fact this problem is not visible with f16's rpm but are visible with f17's rpm, likely originates from the recent changes to f17's rpm by Jindrich, which changed the way rpm identifies perl-scripts as "perl-script". In other words, my suspicion is, before these changes, these files were not identified as perl-script and therefore had been ignored. Now, they are identified as perl-scripts and therefore are "perl-deptracked" and NOT filtered out, because %perl_default_filters doesn't work if not being explicitly called. If this suspicion holds, then one should be able to find "supposed to filtered, but not having been filtered" requires/provides inside of the packages from the mass rebuild.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. 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 19 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.
Oh, this got dropped for too long. Is this still an issue? If so, can you make sure that the files are not executable in the RPM_BUILD_ROOT (and not just labeled 644 in the spec file).
Hmm, I've just tried it with Scope::Upper and it seems it doesn't happen anymore, regardless of whether the example scripts are executable or not.