On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2017-07-30 at 17:07 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> highlight-3.36-3.fc27 suddenly has a Requires: /bin/lua: >> >> $ rpm -qp --requires >> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/highlight/3.39/1.fc27/x8 >> 6_64/highlight-3.39-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm >> /bin/lua >> config(highlight) = 3.39-1.fc27 >> libc.so.6()(64bit) >> … >> >> I have verified that this comes from the >> /usr/share/doc/highlight/examples/json/theme2json.lua file installed >> by >> the package. >> >> The immediate result is that highlight is uninstallable because >> nothing >> provides /bin/lua. We could patch the example file to use >> #!/usr/bin/lua instead, but IMHO it's not reasonable that a mere >> example >> in the documentation introduces a hard dependency. >> >> Is this the expected behavior? Shall I file a bug against rpm? > This is expected 😉 But if you think it is wrong, you are welcomed t > o open a bug. > > I can't find guidelines about this now, but we have something about > removal of executable flag on documentation so no dependencies are > generated or something similar..
I thought I read sometime back that RPM automatically filters out documentation directories for these things... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
