[Rpm-maint] [Rpm-announce] RPM 4.14.0 release candidate 2 is out

[Thierry Vignaud]

On 2 October 2017 at 15:04, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> wrote:

>>> It's probably this:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/816c7cf3fdae5c45de02a42a2245549778e2ca80
>>>
>>> If so, the following in the spec should work around it:
>>> %undefine __global_requires_exclude_from
>>> %undefine __global_provides_exclude_from
>>
>>
>> That works but that not manageable for 3000+ perl packages
>> So that would have to be reverted at the distro wide level.
>
>
> I wasn't suggesting you do it on every package, it was just to see whether
> that's really the cause.
>
> Just comment out the defaults in rpm's main macros file to stop it
> distro-wide.

Already done :-)

>>> I never really agreed to filtering doc dependencies because there's no
>>> reason docs could not have dependencies, they just tend to be slightly
>>> different from other docs.
>
>
> Oops, that paragraph got garbled (was in a bit of hurry). It was supposed to
> say something like "..., they just tend to be slightly different in nature
> from other dependencies.
>
>> I understand the reasoning.
>
>
> Not sure which reasoning you mean :) Like said, I never really liked the
> idea of filtering them in the first place.

I understand some packagers not want to got extra deps b/c of example
scripts & the like
But I think it's wrong to do it at distro wide level, at least for some distros

>> In that case I guess we could package them in another place (like
>> pythoneggs)
>> But that means more changes to 3000+ packages.
>> Up to now, mga perl packagers could just rely on using "%doc META.yml"
>> and voila autodeps were automagically working
>>
>>> Just wondering if those files should really be %doc - I've no idea what
>>> they
>>> do, but metadata doesn't really sound like documentation. Does the
>>> package
>>> work if installed with --nodocs?
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course they would work.
>> Those files are not packaged in eg FC
>> They're just metadata. But those metadata actually describe the deps.
>
>
> Yeah I get that. Let me put it in different way:
>
> Would there be an actual reason to package those files if not for rpm's
> dependency generator? This kinda sounds like the answer is "no".

None at all indeed.