[oe] QA for intentionally unpackaged files

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Junqian,

Wednesday, May 9, 2007, 5:25:00 AM, you wrote:

> Now there is no way to distinguish if the following is intensional by 
> the package maintainer or an oversight without taking a closer look at
> the contents

        So, maybe "closer look" is indeed a solution here?

> NOTE: the following files were installed but not shipped in any package:
> NOTE:   /usr/lib/libpython2.4.so
> NOTE:   /usr/lib/.debug/libpython2.4.so.1.0
> NOTE:   /usr/share/man/man1/python.1
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/python2.4
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/smtpd.py
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/.debug/python

> Maybe we should have something in insane.bb to take care of the 
> intentionally unpackaged crusts. So we can do something like the 
> following in a bb file to intensionally leave out some garbage unpackaged:

> UNSHIPPED = "${libdir}/libpython2.4.so ${bindir}/smtpd.py"  #reason why
> not package/ship it

        Who exactly will go over all recipes and add such lines?

> so during do_package or package_QA, it would show as

> NOTE: the following files were installed but not shipped in any package:
> NOTE:   /usr/lib/libpython2.4.so   UNSHIPPED #reason why not 
> packaged/ship it

        No, thanks, it likely shouldn't dump them at all then.

> NOTE:   /usr/lib/.debug/libpython2.4.so.1.0
> NOTE:   /usr/share/man/man1/python.1
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/python2.4
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/smtpd.py  UNSHIPPED #reason why not packaged/ship it
> NOTE:   /usr/bin/.debug/python

> Is SUNK a better word than UNSHIPPED?

        No.

> Gordon


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com