http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c198 --- Comment #198 from Kristoffer Gronlund <kgronlund@suse.com> --- (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed. I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files. Whoever thought that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned hack. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.