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

[Thierry Vignaud]

On 2 October 2017 at 15:50, Thierry Vignaud <thierry.vignaud at gmail.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.

BTW ignored deps should be debugable with specific logs when using
--rpmfcdebug IMGO