Am 05.02.2016 um 13:36 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 13:29 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar (dimstar@opensuse.org) [20160202 00:51]:
Indeed - personal style to chose. From experience, I use explicit lists when it's about a lot of plugin-style files that get auto-enabled based on deps. Like this, I see when a dep goes missing: the build fails.
I used to prefer wildcards but then the build of one binary failed unnoticed and we released the package it's part of. Subsequently a bug report was opened when a user noticed the omission. After that I changed to explicitely list the files in my packages.
Thanks for sharing this Philipp,
It confirms that what is often perceived as 'less work' can turn out as more work/frustration later on when you have to chase a bug that could have been avoided.
I had a similar issue in the qemu package where binaries and firmware files ended up in an unintended sub-package. We switched to an explicit file list, so that we notice new files on version update. It didn't really break anything but it made a common package much larger, packages inconsistent and now requires carrying a "Provides: originalpackage:filepath" as remedy. The downside is that the package build takes quite some time until those errors show up.
It's a trade-off the packager has to chose - and live with the consequences.
Cheers, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org