Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-07-25 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 24.7.2018 v 20:41 Jeff Johnson napsal(a): > >> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> I would have use for %optional: >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scl-utils/pull-request/1 >> >> Let me explain. scl-utils 2.x introduced support for environment >> modules. They are

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-07-24 Thread Jeff Johnson
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I would have use for %optional: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scl-utils/pull-request/1 > > Let me explain. scl-utils 2.x introduced support for environment > modules. They are now enforcing existence of modulefile. However, the >

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-07-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
I would have use for %optional: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scl-utils/pull-request/1 Let me explain. scl-utils 2.x introduced support for environment modules. They are now enforcing existence of modulefile. However, the modulefile is not available in SCLs prepared for scl-utils 1.x and

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Jeff Johnson
FYI: Using %config with %ghost is meaningless gibberish because there is no digest (or any content) associated with the path in the header metadata. And %optional has nothing whatsoever to do with %optional because %optional is entirely a build time directive, not a file nor a verify flag,

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Neal Gompa
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:08:15PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Dmitry V. Levin
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:08:15PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > > Hi! > > > > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file > > attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may >

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Neal Gompa
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > Hi! > > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file > attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may > not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some architectures). > >

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread James Antill
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 12:43 +0200, Florian Festi wrote: > Hi! > > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional > file attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections > that may not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some > architectures). So the normal

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Pascal Terjan
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, 11:44 Florian Festi, wrote: > Hi! > > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file > attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may > not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some architectures). > > It

[Rpm-ecosystem] RFC #417 %optional file attribute

2018-03-26 Thread Florian Festi
Hi! We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some architectures). It is already perfectly legal to have files not listed explicitly if they are within a