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)? 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). 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 João 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".
-----Original Message----- From: João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> 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, João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> 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@wireshark.org>Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-devUnsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
