http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c202 --- Comment #202 from Kristoffer Gronlund <kgronlund@suse.com> --- (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #201)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #200)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #199)
(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.
My point is that license files were being marked as %doc before the %license directive existed. It looks to me like this only became a concern when the idea of stripping docs from packages in order to make them smaller came up, and this is what I object to.
You object to the concept of excludedocs in general, right? That would be an entirely separate topic though, this bug is about migration to %license for license files.
My objection is to the reliance on excludedocs for reducing the size of container installations, and this being the reason for pushing the move to using %license. (at least, that is what it looks like to me). If the goal is to reduce the size of packages, I would prefer if that was done explicitly via directives introduced for that specific purpose. But sure, I'll give this meaningless crusade up and concede that %license has a legitimate use on its own. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.