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

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

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


[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/tille/devscripts.git;a=blob;f=scripts/uscan.pl
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/UscanEnhancements


Reply to: