Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

[João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me also stress that only doc/*.pod and some airpcap files have the 
hacky soon-to-be-removed exception. These were grandfathered in. 
Everything else will still cause hard builbot failures.

On 08/06/2016 11:23 PM, Jo�o Valverde wrote:
> On 08/06/2016 11:01 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
> > So is the "checklicense tool" now the same between the Petri-Dish and
> > the master buildbot?  Is that the reason the master buildbot now has to
> > "pass" (otherwise all Petri-Dish runs will fail)?
>
> Yes, that's the reason.
>
> > If so, I prefer the way it used  to be - master buildbot (legitimately)
> > failing, but Petri-Dish being more lenient (even if it was
> > unintentional).
>
> OK, but PD was never lenient. The difference is that the PD
> licensecheck.pl used to match fewer files.
>
> The intent of the original email and my efforts was to
> > only remove errors for files that had a legitimate reason not to have
> > license template.  I think "all files without an extension" is a little
> > too generous an exception (although I do appreciate all the work Jo�o
> > did) .  Guy nicely outlined the remaining issues and I don't want those
> > to get lost in the shuffle because the buildbot appears as if its
> > "passing".
>
> The overly generous situation was the extant situation before the recent
> buildbot upgrades to Ubuntu 16.04. But to eliminate is a one line change
> -- see the diff I mailed.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jo�o Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 5:43 pm
> > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py
> >
> > On 08/06/2016 10:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote: > On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM,
> > Jo�o Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> Done in
> > https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/. > > Does "Removed regex to
> > check files without an extension." mean that we are, or aren't, checking
> > files without an extension? > > If it means we aren't, should we give
> > the few scripts that don't have an extension an extension, such as .sh
> > for shell scripts, so that we check them for a license? Most of our
> > shell scripts have a .sh extension, although that's not necessarily the
> > right answer for shell scripts to be run as commands. It means we aren't
> > checking files without an extension. I removed that match from the
> > Debian script as unworkable for our purposes, made worse by the fact
> > that the check licenses step is being run on an unclean build directory
> > by PD. I think your suggestion to add an .sh extension for files we wish
> > to include would be best. But otherwise we should feel free to tailor
> > checklicenses.py + licensecheck.pl in the tools dir to suit our needs.
> > For future reference here is the diff I applied to the upstream
> > licensecheck.pl: --- ../licensecheck.pl 2016-08-05 20:43:04.098683796
> > +0100 +++ tools/licensecheck.pl 2016-08-06 20:18:20.415943059 +0100 @@
> > -193,8 +193,6 @@ my $default_ignore_regex = qr! my $default_check_regex
> > = qr! - /[\w-]+$ # executable scripts or README like file - | \.( #
> > search for file suffix c(c|pp|xx)? # c and c++ |h(h|pp|xx)? # header
> > files for c and c++ @@ -594,7 +592,7 @@ EOF sub version { print <<"EOF";
> > -This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package, version
> > ###VERSION### +This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package,
> > version 2.16.2 Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 by Adam D. Barratt
> > <adam\@adam-barratt.org.uk>; based on a script of the same name from the
> > KDE SDK by <dfaure\@kde.org>. @@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ sub parselicense {
> > $license = "GPL$gplver$extrainfo $license"; } - + if ($licensetext =~
> > /is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License,/ and
> > length $gplver) {
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Archives:
> > https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe:
> > https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> > mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> >
> > mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe