Re: QA for intentionally unpackaged files

[Michael Krelin <hacker@klever.net>]

> Michael Krelin schreef:
>>>> UNSHIPPED = "${libdir}/libpython2.4.so ${bindir}/smtpd.py"  #reason why
>>>> not package/ship it
>>>         Who exactly will go over all recipes and add such lines?
>> I take it the proposal was that package maintainers should take care of
>> it. Indeed, it would be better if intentionally unpackaged files invoked
>> no QA notice. But I think the solution is either not install them or rm
>> them after installation, depending on installation procedure nature.
> 
> Or we could patch package.bbclass[1] to do:
> 
> PACKAGES += "${PN}-leftovers"
> FILES_${PN}-leftovers = "/"

I'd rather propose, indeed, packaging the intentional leftovers into a
-leftovers package manually on each package that wants leftovers. But as
you pointed out that there are no valid reasons for files to be
unpackaged, I'm sure it's possible to come up with more meaningful name
for -leftovers package in each particular case. And before files are
packaged QA notice stays QA notice, because it *is* QA issue ;-)


Love,
H