Re: Continue discussion about uscan enhancement (Was: Uscan enhancements revitalised)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:35:27PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > OK. So Fields-Excluded is currently not part of DEP5 anyway and so I
> > revert my former answer that it fits the Files format because it may
> > contain  wildcards (and I do not see any problem because of this).
> > I agree with Jonas that discussing the format might be delayed until
> > after Wheezy release.
> Copyright ile format 1.0 permits unofficial fields, so I disagree with
> your reasoning to avoid Files-Excluded:.
I do *not* want to avoid 'Files-Excluded'! I was just asked:
"By the way, are there differences with the syntax of the Files field ?"
and my answer was
"Not any more (hopefully) ..."
Now Charles has proven my hopes wrong in.
> Makes sense to me to a) introduce a new field that can later be adopted
> in a later revision of the format, but b) reuse existing defined
> *format* for that new field.
The Files field seems to be a specific form of the "Whitespace-separated
lists" format (at least the restriction about  is made only in the
Files field definition.) It is certainly my fault that I did not
joined DEP5 discussion to question this definition which puts a
restriction into effect that I do not understand. But I agree that it
does not make any sense to reopen a DEP5 debatte now.
On the other hand I do not see why I should put any restriction onto a
new field if I can use the defined "Whitespace-separated lists"
format. And yes, for sure, I perfectly agree that it is a pretty
reasonable goal to use the same format for Files and Files-Excluded and
if you want to be safe you might refrain from adding  wildcards into
your copyright files. But for the moment I see no reason to remove this
from files living in VCS (exclusively, not released files) that are
perfectly working with tools adapted to this (also in VCS not released)
just to follow a potential outcome to a non-existing decision.