rpms/libshout/devel libshout.spec,1.6,1.7

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Sat Apr 2 11:13:07 UTC 2005


On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:03:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 20:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:06:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 09:11 -0500, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Author: mschwendt
> > > 
> > > > Index: libshout.spec
> > > 
> > > > @@ -59,11 +59,15 @@
> > > >  %doc doc/*.html doc/style.css
> > > >  %{_libdir}/libshout.a
> > > >  %{_libdir}/libshout.so
> > > > +%dir %{_includedir}/shout/
> > > >  %{_includedir}/shout/shout.h
> > > 
> > > Why not simply
> > > %{_includedir}/shout
> > > ??
> > 
> > Because in case a packager prefers listing header names explicitly, I
> > don't want to override such a decision.
> 
> C'mon, that's a clear oversight or an historic artifact ...

I disagree.

The package owner is free to shorten the %files section with the help of
wildcards and recursive inclusion of directories. Whether and when to
do that is not my decision.

If it had been

  %{_includedir}/shout/*

I would have changed it to:

  %{_includedir}/shout/

But one nice thing about listing header files explicitly is that adding or
removing headers won't happen unnoticed. And over time I've learned that
some packagers prefer that. Similarly, some packagers don't like too many
wildcards, because that bears the risk of including unwanted files.




More information about the scm-commits mailing list