--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie> wrote: > From: Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie> > Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds > To: "Mageia development mailing-list" <mageia-dev@mageia.org> > Cc: "David Walser" <luigiwal...@yahoo.com> > Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM > 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at > 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble: > > So, maybe we should do something about this. My > preference would > > have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded > files, but not > > die, just give a warning instead. > > Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to > exclude files > completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in > the the > %install section for that (we typically already do that to > remove *.la > files for example). > > So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file > list and > should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions: > > e.g. > %files > %{_libdir}/foo/* > %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package > > %files -n sub > %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package > > > That kind of thing. > > That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the > upstream > behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all > the same > even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when > needed. > > Cheers > > Col
So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch. The patch changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as Colin and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch Makefiles) instead.