On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, David Walser <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds >> To: "Mageia development mailing-list" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "David Walser" <[email protected]> >> 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.
