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:
> 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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk