@dmnks converted this issue into discussion #2795.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1852#event-11095249265
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> ```
> %files
> %{gem_instdir}/config
>
> %excludes
> %{gem_instdir}/config
> ```
>
> Also, I believe that your examples are not really equivalent. Because one of
> the issues is that currently `%excludes` does exclude such item from package,
> but does not exclude it from other processing
> I still don't like the duplicity, though
Neither do I. I just hope that my example is exceptional and the entry would be
enough to list in `%excludes` section in most of the cases
> Example of what I mean:
Huh, I think my brain is going to explode now thinking about the example
Oh! My bad, I didn't realize this. Of course, this is a good point and
something to consider if/when we design the solution.
I still don't like the duplicity, though. We could perhaps make it so that the
`%excludes` section would just be "syntactic sugar" for explicit `%exclude`
lines in all
> > Note that the `%{gem_instdir}/config` is excluded form the main package,
> > but then it is not obvious if it should not be included elsewhere.
> > Therefore it is listed for the second time in the `%excludes` section to
> > make it clear it is not forgotten and it should really be
Yup, people seem to be interested in having native support for excludes. What
remains to be seen is whether want package-level excludes (i.e. a preamble tag
such as `Exclude: pkg1 pkg2 ...` as discussed in #2555) or file-level ones
(i.e. an `%excludes` section as proposed here).
> Note that
I've opened kind-of a duplicate with
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2555 since I have
the need to conditionally "drop" built subpackages. So my idea is to add the
ability to do this by turning
an existing %files into what you describe as %excludes section with a new
