> 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 a bug. RPM isn't supposed to look for these in documentation directories.

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..