Comment # 200 on bug 1082318 from
(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.

> > 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.

This is the document I read:

>Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.

I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the
%license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being
repurposed for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to %license.
Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc reasoning
after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was raised, of
course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in the commit
which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's hard to follow
the chain all the way back:

You are receiving this mail because: