Comment # 199 on bug 1082318 from Fabian Vogt

(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #198)
> (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.

That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention
here.

> 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.

That is not true. Please read up on what %license means and does.