Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-11 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:32:04 +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote: > 2015-01-10 13:04 GMT+01:00 Michael Schwendt: > > %exclude is global per spec file, or else you would need to %exclude > > a file in _all_ subpackages (in the case when deleting it in %install > > would be more convenient anyway). That wou

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-11 Thread Thomas Moschny
2015-01-10 13:04 GMT+01:00 Michael Schwendt : > %exclude is global per spec file, or else you would need to %exclude > a file in _all_ subpackages (in the case when deleting it in %install > would be more convenient anyway). That would cause some pain in some > packages. Is that really true? But

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:06:10 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > In this particular case some stuff gets added depending on whether or > not the build process finds all of the fonts that are needed. I wanted > this to fail during build if any were not found, %check [ -f %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/font

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 18:33:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: Deleting files in %install is considered cleaner by many, because it ensures that a file is not found inside the %buildroot anymore and cannot be included accidentally either. The drawback is obvious: There ought to be a comment e

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:51:19 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > My guess would have > been that %excludes would have been developed specifically for making it > convenient to exclude a directory in the main package that needs to be owned > by a subpackage. Rather: a quick way to not package a fil

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 13:04:27 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:27:15 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: If a file is covered by %exclude in the main package, but is not included in any subpackage, it will not trigger a build failure. %exclude is global per spec file, or e

Re: Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:27:15 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > While working on a spec file to cause build failure if new fonts showed > up in a package, I noticed two oddities with the checking for unpackaged > files. > > An unpackaged empty directory will not trigger a build failure. That's an

Unpackaged files checking - oddities

2015-01-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
While working on a spec file to cause build failure if new fonts showed up in a package, I noticed two oddities with the checking for unpackaged files. An unpackaged empty directory will not trigger a build failure. If a file is covered by %exclude in the main package, but is not included in