Comment # 197 on bug 1082318 from
(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.

You are receiving this mail because: