When I run the reuse lint tool on the current linux sources, I get
following error
reuse.project - WARNING - Could not resolve SPDX identifier of
LICENSES/deprecated/GPL-1.0, resolving to LicenseRef-Unknown0
reuse.project - WARNING - Could not resolve SPDX identifier of
LICENSES/exceptions/GCC-exc
s/spdxcheck.py -`;
> + my $root_path = abs_path($root);
> + my $status = `cd $root_path; echo "$license" | python
> scripts/spdxcheck.py -`;
> return 0 if ($status ne "");
> return 1;
> }
Thanks, works at least for me. Maybe use
cd "$root_path"
to get it working with paths that include spaces.
Tested-by: Charlemagne Lasse
> Does this work for you:
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index f25f708cd2a7..f0e6913c5cc1 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@
Hi,
I am now getting python errors when using --root with checkpatch.pl
and not being inside the linux repository.
$ ./linux-next/scripts/checkpatch.pl --root=/usr/src/linux-next
--strict -f linux-next/Makefile
FAIL: /usr/src
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/src/linux-next/scripts/sp
Since the commit 9dd0c31c6cc0 ("checkpatch: improve patch
recognition"), the checkpatch.pl in linux-next is only printing a lot
of error messages when started (with and without arguments):
Variable "$clean" is not imported at ./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 6496.
Variable "$clean" is not imported at
Hi,
will there be an announcement that Linux 3.2 is EOL or will there be
another release which announces it as the last release of this stable
series? The kernel release page
https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html lists it as EOL for this
month.
Charlemagne
2017-11-18 21:41 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :
> 2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
>> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>>
>
>> I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic
>> internal FSF politics that tried to ch
2017-11-18 20:14 GMT+01:00 Linus Torvalds :
> You may be confusing things because of a newer version.
>
> I refuse to change the original copyright wording due to idiotic
> internal FSF politics that tried to change history.
But you are accepting commit messages which are factually wrong? I am no
2017-11-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Charlemagne Lasse :
>> +Ty Coon, President of Vice
>> +
>> +This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
>> +proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
>> +consider it
mas Gleixner
NACKed-by: Charlemagne Lasse
This is neither the GPL-2.0 from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
(which you should have used) or
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html#licenseText
Please download the correct ASCII version from gnu.org and add your SPDX
info in front of i
2017-11-13 13:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Charlemagne Lasse wrote:
>> > +If a specific tool cannot handle the standard comment style, then the
>> > +appropriate comment mechanism which the tool accepts shall be used.
>>
>> Most of the thin
t it
possible to use a common style in C source files an C header files?
C source: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */
C header: /* SPDX-License-Identifier: */
Thanks,
Charlemagne Lasse
[1] https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse
[2] https://reuse.software/
[3] https://git.fsfe.org/jonas/curl/src/reuse-compliant/src/slist_wc.c
From: Charlemagne Lasse
Hi,
the FSFE created some best practices for the (re)distribution of open source
software [1]. They partially talk about the the SPDX-License-Identifier tag
which Greg Kroah-Hartman is already using to clarify the copyright status of
some source files. But they also
From: Charlemagne Lasse
Several source files in Linux reference the LGPL-2.0 but without the
complete license text. The REUSE best practices [1] for software
(re)distribution recommends to ship the complete license text instead of
depending on third parties to provide them to the user. This is
From: Charlemagne Lasse
Several source files in Linux reference the GPL-1.0 but without the
complete license text. The REUSE best practices [1] for software
(re)distribution recommends to ship the complete license text instead of
depending on third parties to provide them to the user. This is
From: Charlemagne Lasse
drivers/tty/serial/8250/serial_cs.c in Linux references the MPL-1.1 but
without the complete license text. The REUSE best practices [1] for
software (re)distribution recommends to ship the complete license text
instead of depending on third parties to provide them to the
From: Charlemagne Lasse
Several source files in Linux reference the LGPL-2.1 but without the
complete license text. The REUSE best practices [1] for software
(re)distribution recommends to ship the complete license text instead of
depending on third parties to provide them to the user. Some of
From: Charlemagne Lasse
Several source files in Linux reference the GPL-2.0 but without the
complete license text. The REUSE best practices [1] for software
(re)distribution recommends to ship the complete license text instead of
depending on third parties to provide them to the user.
There is
ENSES/MPL-1.1.txt
https://www.mozilla.org/media/MPL/1.1/index.0c5913925d40.txt
curl -o LICENSES/LGPL-2.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.txt
curl -o LICENSES/LGPL-2.1.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
$EDITOR COPYING
# change file to reference LICENSES/GPL-2.0.txt ?
git add LICENSES COPYING
git commit
Thanks,
Charlemagne Lasse
el.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9580_1p0_initvals.h?id=b39545684a90ef3374abc0969d64c7bc540d128d
It would also be interesting to know from the FSFE how dual license
should be handled in by the License-Filename tag.
Thanks,
Charlemagne Lasse
arse's git then when will there be a new release of it?
Greetings,
Charlemagne Lasse
Hi,
I've been playing around with the current checkpatch.pl but I start to
wonder whether the two new checks "CHECK: Macro argument reuse
'member' - possible side-effects?" and "CHECK: Macro argument 'member'
may be better as '(member)' to avoid precedence issues" are correct.
My impression is th
i Networks
--
Charlemagne Lasse, Nov 24, 06:08 PST
Hi,
I am the owner of an UniFi® AP AC PRO. I hereby request the full
source code for all GPL components in your firmware release
3.4.17.3440 of UniFi® AP AC PRO and the GPL source code of the
pre-installed
Hi,
I've noticed that checkpatch prints an error in linux-next. This can
be reproduced via
./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict --file net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c
This problem seems to be introduced by d369873d2f53 ("Merge branch
'akpm-current/current'") which is a merge of 6a6594aace5c ("Merge
remo
Hi,
I wanted to understand some modules in the kernel and how their data
structures are interconnected. So I am not interested in all data
structures of the kernel but something more like
net/bridge/br_private.h.
With C++ I would just tell doxygen to generate uml-like class
diagrams. But the kern
25 matches
Mail list logo
