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

Re: Continue discussion about uscan enhancement (Was: Uscan enhancements revitalised)

Quoting Andreas Tille (2013-01-16 14:19:55)
> 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'!

Ok.  I misunderstood.

> > 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"[4] format (at least the restriction about [] is made only in the
> Files field definition[5].)  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"[4] 
> 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.

Sorry if I am 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.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: