2011/3/9 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>: > Nice! And timely! But this behaviour is wrong!
Why would one add additional functionality to a long existence %exclude attribute to do the same as what already can be done by using 'rm -rf'? And what if one intended to only exclude the file from being archived with that specific package, but not from every one (ie. still desired to do unpackaged file check on it) And what's the sanity behind using %exclude skip file from unpackaged files check for specific packages? "Yes, for the packages 'foo' and 'bar', 'foo' is the package that wants to skip the unpackaged file check the most!" It makes no sense, if %exclude were actually intended for that purpose, it would've made a *lot* more sense to not require for it to be used on per-package basis! %exclude only gets included in the list of packaged files because it's being passed as a file with a special attribute to *not* archive in that specific package. The unpackaged files check didn't know anything about these attributes and treats files as files.. Here's one previous reference to the topic being discussed earlier as well: http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/2007-July/019221.html Pleeeaaseee don't make me having to try explain the logics and cause of the specific bug that's not really in our rpm version even to begin with. gaaah! -- Regards, Per Øyvind ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
