You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In glibc.spec, we have considerable scripting logic to distribute files among subpackages, see split_sysroot_file_list. It's way less involved than it used to be, but with the right %exclude semantics, we could make this much clearer.
I see that #994 criticizes the current behavior. And indeed it would be more general if some sequence of directives could add files matching a few patterns to one subpackage file list, then remove some files matching different patterns, and then add back a few exceptions that were removed before. With the current unordered %exclude, that is not possible. And without documentation, we don't really know if the current behavior is deemed permanent.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The present %exclude semantics isn't ideal, indeed, and there are plans to change that in the future (#994) so documenting the status quo probably wouldn't make much sense and would make changes to it more complicated and/or risky.
Either way, could you please give a concrete (simplified) example of what semantics you'd like it to have? A random trivial example that comes to mind is (based on your description):
In
glibc.spec
, we have considerable scripting logic to distribute files among subpackages, seesplit_sysroot_file_list
. It's way less involved than it used to be, but with the right%exclude
semantics, we could make this much clearer.I see that #994 criticizes the current behavior. And indeed it would be more general if some sequence of directives could add files matching a few patterns to one subpackage file list, then remove some files matching different patterns, and then add back a few exceptions that were removed before. With the current unordered
%exclude
, that is not possible. And without documentation, we don't really know if the current behavior is deemed permanent.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: