Comment # 202 on bug 1082318 from Kristoffer Gronlund

(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. ;)