On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:43:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Sorry if I am dense...
I like you because I know you are dense. ;-)
> You agree that Files and Files-Excluded should ideally use same format,
> but you find it more important that Files-Excluded be flexible - even
> if Files as currently defined is not.
>
> Did I get that correct?
>
> In case it was unclear: I find it more important for Files and
> Files-Excluded to use _same_ format than for Files-Excluded to use an
> ideal format _now_.
>
> I find it better to discuss (later!) relaxing that Files format, which
> would then affect both Files and Files-Excluded, than to now try
> second-guess what Files format might be relaxed to allow in the future.
Let me put it like this: My *current* implementation of uscan is
accepting [] wildcards. I would need to squeeze my mind to reduce the
functionality of find to implement the Files format definition. If
somebody volunteers to send me a patch I would consider applying it.
For the moment I see no need for action before a discussion has started.
I have documented the difference between the `Files` and `Files-Excluded`
formats in the Wiki[2] to make sure we will not forget. Feel free to add
a hint to advise users to refrain from using [] wildcards.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1]
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/tille/devscripts.git;a=blob;f=scripts/uscan.pl
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130116141122.gh5...@an3as.eu
