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