On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:08:15PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file > > attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may > > not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some architectures). > > > > It is already perfectly legal to have files not listed explicitly if > > they are within a directory that is included in the %file section. But > > some packages (examples wanted) may have trouble using this due to the > > way the package files are laid out. > > > > Otoh %optional would be another spec language key word that packagers > > have to deal with and we as RPM upstream developers have a hard time > > judging whether the benefit of the attribute really out weights the cost > > of bloating the spec language. > > > > Any input - especially with real world packages that would benefit such > > an addition - is welcome. > > > > I personally wouldn't use %optional in most cases, just like I avoid > %missingok (the install-time counterpart to this).
%missingok is *not* an install-time counterpart to %optional. Imagine you have the following use of %missignok: %ghost %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace,missingok) %verify(not md5 mtime size) /etc/postfix/*.db - this means that some of /etc/postfix/*.db files listed in %files *might* be created by the package during its lifetime. In contrast, %optional means that it's explicitly OK for some of files listed in %files to disappear from the package at build time for any reason. -- ldv
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
