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

Re: DEP-5: Files field and filename patterns

On to, 2010-08-26 at 08:43 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The Files field needs to specify patterns on filenames. We need to
> specify how to do that.

Here is my understanding of the current situation:

* There is no particular consensus on filename patterns.

* Charles suggests a very simple globbing (* and ? and nothing else).

* .gitignore is still on the table, but has neither strong support, nor
strong opposition.

* No consensus on exclusions in patterns versus multiple paragraphs.

* No consensus on patterns on basename only, versus the whole path.

* Nobody seems to object dropping commas for separating patterns.

* Nobody likes my idea of regexps on pathnames.

To make this go forward, I suggest that we adopt Charles's suggestion of
very simple globbing, since that's going to be compatible with more
powerful syntaxes if we want to adopt those later. Further, I suggest we
not treat the slash character specially when matching, so that
*/Makefile.in will match Makefile.in at any depth. All patterns are
anchored to the root of the source tree; thus a plain Makefile.in will
match only at the root of the source tree. I suggest we not add
exclusions at this time. In a year or two, we can re-visit this part of
the spec and see if it needs to be improved.

Is this proposal acceptable? If so, I'll write up a formal suggestion
for the new wording. (I'm sitting in a cafe waiting for a movie to
start, so I don't have time for that now.)

(Burglars please take note: we've emptied our apartment. We're moving to
another country. There's no point in trying to steal anything, unless
you like carpet lint.)

(Oh, people following the DEP-5 saga should perhaps note that for the
next week I'll be in transit and might not have frequent Internet
access. Indeed, I might be entirely too busy avoiding dropbears, boxing
with kangaroos, and learning life lessons from koalas to react very
quickly to DEP-5 e-mails, but I'll get to them the following week.)

(Lisp programmers please take note: I am not saying using Lisp will make
you use too many parentheses, but that's certainly what happened to me.)

Reply to: