Re: [boost] [inspect] Contents in XML <legalnotice> sections not checked for L & C issues?

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-27 10:48:04

Andreas Huber wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> - It seems it doesn't check the boostbook xml (otherwise it would be
>>> looking for the legalnotice tag, wouldn't it?)
>> Incorrect. Those legalnotice tags should contain the
>> "boost[\\s\\W]+software[\\s\\W]+license" text and hence will be
>> inspected. Hence why you example above is pertinent.
> 
> Ok, please have a look at:
> 
> http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/libs/thread/doc/thread.xml
> 
> What if someone removes the <legalnotice> section in this file (or 
> rewords it to whatever he pleases)? My guess is that inspect will not 
> report a failure then because there's still the XML comment. I've not 
> actually found an example for such a problem but then again I haven't 
> looked that hard.

Yea, that's a correct guess. This is certainly a problem, read that as 
bug, in such documents. There should only be *one* license statement per 
file. I think the best approach would be to add a check to the inspect 
program that complains when it finds multiple license instances in a file.

> This problem, together with the broken license propagation of the doc 
> tools, seems to suggest that inspect would best also check the generated 
> HTML.

Strange, it suggest something different to me :-) I find it better to 
detect errors close to the source of the problem, rather than the 
farther away point of after generation.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo