Modifying Files-Excluded pattern specification

[James McCoy]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 02:00:40PM +0100, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> In-Reply-To=<20140321105301.GE18098 at an3as.eu>
> 
> 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 <jamessan at debian.org>