[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Uscan enhancements revitalised (Was: let uscan exclude some upstream files)

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:19:19PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:

> As I see on your Wiki page you have described your proposal from your
> last posting on the mailing list[3] which is actually in contrast to
> what is implemented in [2] and was described and discussed in the thread
> starting here[4].  I should most probably add the current implementation
> to the Wiki page and I will do so in the next couple of days.  But
> before I'm starting to do so I would like to clarify why you used the
> headline "Implementation" about the paragraph explaining what is not
> implemented.  That's a bit confusing but may be I missunderstood
> something.  Before I start mixing up things I'd like to hear your real
> intention which I might have missed.
> Now for the current implementation: The stumbling block I was currently
> facing is that I want to strip some upstream source (of igv[5]) from a
> jar file which resides inside the packaging root as well as in a
> subdirectory.  It looks like
>    IGVDistribution_2.1.30/goby-io-igv.jar       (a)
>    IGVDistribution_2.1.30/lib/goby-io-igv.jar   (b)
> The thing is that (a) should be removed and (b) needs to remain - but
> this case is not possible with the current implementation.  If
> Files-Excluded contains a string without '/' a "find -name" search is
> approached and catches them all.  I remember this behaviour was
> mentioned as a design flaw but the pro-argument is that you really
> comfortably can use this when doing things like
>    Files-Excluded: ._* *~ .DS_Store
> If you would need to specify each and any dir containing such cruft
> files this would become a really lousy way which is not better than
> keeping the old get-orig-source way.

I should have documented the Files-Excluded field in the "Deleted file
specification" section. The "Implementation" section was supposed to
collect information for developers, but the name is quite inaccurate.
Feel free to modify the page.

However, I strongly disagree to interpret patterns differently
depending on whether they contain a slash or not, while "find -path"
alone handles your examples.

  for pattern in
    ._* */._*
    .DS_Store */.DS_Store
    `find "$main_source_dir" -path "$main_source_dir/$_" -print0 | xargs -0 rm -rf`;
  end loop;

The objection you've raised in
persists, but I consider that sparing a few patterns is not worth the
added complexity.

Reply to: