[Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds

Fri Jun 15 15:38:59 CEST 2012

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, David Walser <luigiwalser at yahoo.com> wrote:
+> --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+>> From: Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie>
+>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
+>> To: "Mageia development mailing-list" <mageia-dev at mageia.org>
+>> Cc: "David Walser" <luigiwalser at yahoo.com>
+>> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM
+>> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at
+>> 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
+>> > So, maybe we should do something about this.  My
+>> preference would
+>> > have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded
+>> files, but not
+>> > die, just give a warning instead.
+>>
+>> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to
+>> exclude files
+>> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in
+>> the the
+>> %install section for that (we typically already do that to
+>> remove *.la
+>> files for example).
+>>
+>> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file
+>> list and
+>> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
+>>
+>> e.g.
+>> %files
+>> %{_libdir}/foo/*
+>> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
+>>
+>> %files -n sub
+>> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
+>>
+>>
+>> That kind of thing.
+>>
+>> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the
+>> upstream
+>> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all
+>> the same
+>> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when
+>> needed.
+>>
+>> Cheers
+>>
+>> Col
+>
+> So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch.  The patch changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as Colin and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch Makefiles) instead.
+
+WE DON'T USE ANY PATCH FOR THIS AND WE USE UPSTREAM %EXCLUDE BEHAVIOUR
+
+i wrote in big letters to be sure everybody reads well.
+