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