On May 14, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
I haven't a clue what the better answer is.
But the explicit enumeration is likely to break
again and again and again. I know my habits well ;-)
I perhaps should mention the original reason for
explicit enumeration of files.
When releasing rpm over the years, adding a subdir
just wasn't gud enuf for end lusers because the subdir
included CVS/* and the lusers whined bitterly,
The better fix (and likely achievable @rpm5.org) is
to prepare the tar-ball from a "cvs export" rather than
a cvs checkout.
An export rather than a check-out doesn't have CVS/
subdirs, and would likely permit sub-trees to be mentioned
implicitly, rather than continuing with the insanity of
maintaining explicit file list manifests.
Its entirely unclear whether @rpm5.org should distribute
some of the contained content already within CVS imho.
If the content is included, then it is easier to build RPM.
OTOH, if the content is not included, then
How do I build RPM?
becomes a very tedious maintenance task. But yes,
distributed tar-balls will be smaller without additional
contained content.
The only question I have there is
Why am I wasting time developing "stuff" that
is gonna be instantly slopped into the bit bucket?
Yes, I know my own private reasons for "developing" quite well ...
*shrug* Software development is largely a spectator sport these days ...
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
