Eric Blake wrote:
* cfg.mk (sc_copyright_format): New rule. Suggested by Jim Meyering. ---
I tested that 'make syntax-check' with this patch rebased in place prior to the copyright updates catches the problems, but that when applied to the top of the tree it passes.
cfg.mk | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cfg.mk b/cfg.mk index 9fc2d66..e60820d 100644 --- a/cfg.mk +++ b/cfg.mk @@ -269,6 +269,15 @@ sc_preprocessor_indentation: echo '$(ME): skipping test $@: cppi not installed' 1>&2; \ fi
+sc_copyright_format: + @$(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | xargs grep -ni 'copyright .*Red 'Hat \ + | grep -v Inc \ + && { echo '$(ME): use correct Red Hat copyright' 1>&2; \ + exit 1; } || : + @$(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | xargs grep -ni 'copyright [^(].*Red 'Hat \ + && { echo '$(ME): use correct Red Hat copyright' 1>&2; \ + exit 1; } || : + # We don't use this feature of maint.mk. prev_version_file = /dev/null
Thanks! In each diagnostic, it'd be nice to say what's missing. "Inc." in the first, "(C)" in the second. In the second, isn't s/correct/consistent/ more appropriate? Or is there some legal guidance saying that the (C) is required? I seem to recall reading that at least with FSF copyrights, the "(C)" is optional, and without legal value. The only problem I can see is that when/if adding copyright year numbers (non-range notation), eventually, some copyright lines will be split, causing this check to report false-positive matches. This is another argument for using YYYY-ZZZZ year ranges, when possible, rather than writing them out as Y1, Y2, Y3, ... YN.