On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:00:40PM +0100, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote: > In-Reply-To=<[email protected]> > > Joachim Breitner wrote: > > File-Excluded: foo/bar.js to exclude > > * foo/bar.js (in case of a dirty tarball) > > * pkg-1.0/foo/bar.js (as in your implementation) as well as > > * pkg-1.0/docs/foo/bar.js (this would be new > > the easiest, as it will conceivably stand less in the way of the > > developers, i.e. he would _not_ have to first look up the precise semantics. > > Andreas Tille wrote: > > it is really flexible > > The same effect was available with "*foo/bar.js" or the more accurate > "foo/bar.js */foo/bar.js". > > Imagine an upstream providing two implementations, a default non free > "imp.c" and a free alternative "gpl/imp.c". The maintainer cannot > remove the former while keeping the latter anymore. > > I call this less flexible, but I may miss your point.
Agreed. We shouldn't be introducing divergence between how Files: and Files-Excluded: are interpreted. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
