Comment 9 for bug 638596

(In reply to comment #7)
> Documentation is for humans to read. If a script is truly just documentation
> then packaging it as executable is just as much a defect as packaging man pages
> with executable bits set.

Documentation containing non-executeable scripts are crippled docs.

> But that's well into the land of "spec and packaging
> hygiene and policies" department which I've zero interest in arguing over, and
> little to do with the actual issue here.

 Note that the patch does not change
> any type definitions, and by making the logic for limit macros match that
> for the corresponding type definitions more closely it makes the header
> much easier to check by inspection than it presently is.
>
You have, because rpm is your job and because it's your rpm which
* is producing broken results.
* forces users to cripple their packages.