Counter contrarian examples of the uselessness of %optional:
0) There are _NO_ arch specific include files in Fedora/Centos after a fair
amount of effort to patch all include files to be arch-independent way back
when (like RHEL5 time frame). Being able to copy trees from /usr/include
without worrying about deletions/additions is mostly desirable.
1) Using %ifarch -- while verbose and clunky -- at least identifies what is
intended to be within a package on different architectures, unlike %optional,
which requires a deeper analysis.
2) RPM has always permitted the semantic of "all files within" if a directory
is mentioned, and it's rather trivial to write the pattern that matches an arch
specific include without the %optional artifact. See e.g. the many many
packages that have patterns like %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* or %{_mandir}/man*/*
without any need for %optional.
3) Specific to language specific sub-packages, the usual locales are located on
paths that include the same country code that requires other logic to determine
which sub packages are to be built, and which have an easily matched language
specific pattern to match included paths in the %files manifest.
Would you like to perhaps present a sounder usage case for %optional than you
have already?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/417#issuecomment-373230188_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
