"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 08/06/2009 10:09 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> It would seem an enterprising contributor has taken it upon themselves
>> to mass-file bugs wrt installing packages using --excludedocs.
Yeah, I got some of those too.
>> Should the guideline be changed to suppress the erroneous output, or
>> checks added (as suggested in the aforementioned bug), like
>> [ -f %{_infodir}/pinentry.info ] && ...
> Well, if there is output that we wouldn't want suppressed, we could do
> the file check, but I'm wondering how much of a slow down it would be to
> check for that file several hundred times in a large transaction.
I definitely want to see the guidelines changed in one way or the other;
we shouldn't have individual packagers making their own choices about it.
Personally I think that 2>/dev/null is just too dangerous, and some sort
of scripted check is the way to go. Is there any other way for a
specfile to know whether it's been installed with excludedocs?
I'm imagining
%if !excludedocs
.. run install-info ..
%endif
which hopefully would be cheap enough to answer spot's concern.
regards, tom lane
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
