From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-18 20:21:38
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019, 18:55 Paul A Bristow via Boost, <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Prompted by some recent discussion of Boost license and copyright info by
> the Debian package team,
> Now that the 1.71 release is out bar a little shouting, I wonder if we
> should focus on improving compliance for the next release?
> Iâd like to propose
> 1 A boost/tools/inspect/develop branch to refine the inspect program a
> little and improve the documentation (I have done something on this already
> for my education and use).
> 2 Discussion of the bad results (zip attached) to try to find why there
> are so many reports and to decide what to do.
> 3 Encourage all authors to run inspect on their library locally and try to
> remedy the items missing.
> 4 I suspect that many libraries will have items missing but the authors
> are also missing. So someone from the community maintenance team will need
> to take over and make some decisions on what to do.
> Often just providing a copyright claim from the obvious author and Boost
> license will suffice?
> 5 Try to improve the compliance with other guidelines. For example. there
> are many libraries that are failing to prevent with min and max macros for
> what of a couple of brackets. Usually (std::numeric_limits<>::max)(). All
> these will trip up Windows users in a puzzling way. Please can we just fix
Boost Inspection Report
> Inspect version no 3.1.15
> Run Date: 08:44:19 UTC, Saturday 17 August 2019 Distributed under the
> Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
> (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
> Copyright Boost 2019
> Inspection from path "libs" including subfolders.
> 52355 files scanned
> 4351 directories scanned (including root)
> 3472 problems reported
> Problem counts:
> 1790 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
> 1682 files missing copyright notice
> Worst Offenders:
> outcome 940
> metaparse 556
> polygon 228
> python 194
> beast 192
> algorithm (4)
> array (2)
FYI, I made an attempt a while ago to fix the array:
-- Mateusz Loskot, mateusz_at_[hidden] (Sent from mobile, may suffer from top-posting)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk