Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
The reason for reverting is that there's this unexpected link to %check usage (and ambiguity) and I think those changes are better handled together. I have zero more cycles and/or will to spare on this topic right now. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-815560353___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Ideas for progress: - [ ] Open a [ticket at Fedora Packaging Committee](https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues) or better send a PR to [File and Directory Ownership](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership) ([source](https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/blob/master/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc#_1379)) explaining why `%exluding` files completely from packages is dangerous and not intended to work and that it MUST not be done. - [ ] Work with @voxik to change the rubygem package generator. - [ ] Work with me to solve the Python namespace package issue. For example in [this bugzilla](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935266). Maybe `%ghosting` is a way to go. - [ ] Open a ticket on [rpmlint](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/) to detect completely `%exluded` files. Not sure if it is technically possible, but worth a shot. - [ ] Open a ticket on [FedoraReview](https://pagure.io/FedoraReview) to detect completely `%exluded` files. Should be possible. - [ ] In `%files`, collect the list of `%exluded` files and see if all of them are actually packages somewhere. If not, issue a warning that could be knob-ed to an error. Note that those ideas are not dependent on each other and can happen at different timelines. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-815552109___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
@pmatilai Could we have an (extra) knob for this behavior and have Fedora switch it off by default? I think of the main distributions using/contributing to RPM, only Fedora does not expect to enforce package file list consistency because it runs no package build verification tools as automatic post-build checks that can fail the build. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-815550854___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-815548834___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Reopened #994. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#event-4566954272___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
The change got reverted for now, reopening. Sigh. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-815536345___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
> Maybe it's not horrible, only pretty bad :) It is horrible. See https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1442#issuecomment-731554917 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-731554963___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
I think there is no point in arguing. I understand both sides. Let's try measure the impact of this? Maybe it's not horrible, only pretyy bad :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730376448___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
RPM may not immediately break down if one such change is not done, but maintaining bug compatibility for bug compatibility's sake is a colossal waste of time, and worse, they sooner or later end up preventing new developments from taking place. That's why maintaining those undocumented dark corner behaviors that somebody found is bad for everybody. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730368093___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
I think your definition of "necessary" differs significantly from mine. RPM will not break down if this incompatible change is not made (or reverted, now that you pushed it), so I do not see why it is necessary. And to give some context: as a maintainer of [TIGCC](http://tigcc.ticalc.org/), I was consistently reverting that kind of changes to our patched GCC (C only though, because we did not support C++ (whose GCC frontend is much worse in this respect) for other, unrelated reasons). I did all I could to maintain backwards source compatibility all the way to the initial alpha release of TIGCC and I strongly believe that this should be the standard to which to hold all compilers. E.g., the TIGCC patch reenables multiline C string literals, C casts as lvalues, etc. So I am not just a passive complainer. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730364997___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
If it was unnecessary, I'd agree... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730362669___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
> Just like compilers do. I am also complaining just the same way about compilers doing this. Your "closing loopholes" is your users' incompatible changes that unnecessarily break their builds. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730360691___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Yes, I too have seen an endless stream of specfiles deliberately doing all manner of strange things and abusing loopholes in rpmbuild, and we've been systematically closing those loopholes as we come across them and time permits, for (more) consistent and defined behavior. Just like compilers do. This is just another in a long string of similar changes - buildroot always was only for packaged material. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730354938___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
@kkofler Just because @hroncok is doing that does not mean it was a good idea to do it that way to begin with. Additionally, that would have been broken anyway if you tried to `%exclude` a binary file that had associated debug symbol files, since it would wind up generating a dangling debuginfo symbol file. If we want a stanza that lets you filter out files from _all_ subpackages, we need a different way to do it anyway. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730347706___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Again: how is this an improvement? I have seen many specfiles deliberately using `%exclude` in the way that you are now prohibiting. This is an incompatible change making packaging unnecessarily harder. And Miro @hroncok even posted a case where the obvious fix (using `rm` instead) won't work because the files are needed in `%check`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#issuecomment-730342271___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Closed #994 via #1442. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994#event-4015454938___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
