[inspect] Quickbook license check and Incorrect unlinked file errors.
Hello, I've made a couple of small changes to inspect. The first one causes it to scan '.qbk' files, which it hasn't been scanning up to now. Hopefully that's not too controversial - if it is I can revert it. If you're using quickbook you'll want to make sure that all your files have a copyright notice. And secondly, you can now add a 'boostinspect:nounlinked' exclusion tag to a source file to stop inspect complaining if a html file isn't linked to. I posted this before and there were no objections, although that might be because it was buried inside a thread so I'm mentioning it here for anyone who missed it. Also, if a file is only linked from files containing 'boost:nolink' it is currently reported as unlinked. This currently happend to 'tools/build/v1/variables.html' and 'doc/html/jam.html'. The attached patch fixes that. Should I be checking with someone before making changes like these? Inspect doesn't seem to have a maintainer. Daniel
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Daniel James | Sent: 23 September 2006 15:35 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] [inspect] Quickbook license check and | Incorrect unlinkedfile errors. | | Hello, | | I've made a couple of small changes to inspect. The first | one causes it | to scan '.qbk' files, which it hasn't been scanning up to | now. Hopefully | that's not too controversial - if it is I can revert it. If | you're using | quickbook you'll want to make sure that all your files have | a copyright notice. I've recently added a lot of licence info to lots of math_toolkit .qbk files, These won't be scanned yet - only in alpha stage - but coming to ;ublic view Real Soon Now ;-) So a licence info that works OK (for Quickbook) is, for example [/ Copyright 2006 John Maddock and Paul A. Bristow. Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt). ] Can you confirm that your check will accept this as valid? Thanks Paul --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com |
Paul A Bristow wrote:
So a licence info that works OK (for Quickbook) is, for example
[/ Copyright 2006 John Maddock and Paul A. Bristow. Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt). ]
Can you confirm that your check will accept this as valid?
Yes it will. The check is exactly the same as for other source types, I just added '.qbk' to the list of file signatures that are checked. Daniel
Daniel James <daniel_james@fmail.co.uk> writes:
Also, if a file is only linked from files containing 'boost:nolink' it is currently reported as unlinked. This currently happend to tools/build/v1/variables.html' and 'doc/html/jam.html'. The attached patch fixes that.
Are you sure that ought to be "fixed?" It sounds like the right behavior to me. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel James <daniel_james@fmail.co.uk> writes:
Also, if a file is only linked from files containing 'boost:nolink' it is currently reported as unlinked. This currently happend to tools/build/v1/variables.html' and 'doc/html/jam.html'. The attached patch fixes that.
Are you sure that ought to be "fixed?" It sounds like the right behavior to me.
Well, both files have links that point to them and inspect is reporting them unlinked, which seems wrong to me. I believe that boostinspect:nolink's purpose is to suppress warnings about invalid links in a file, it doesn't mean that the valid links in that file are any less valid. Although, looking at the two files that contain boostinspect:nolink, it seems to have been added to suppress warnings about links to files in doc/html - so it could possibly be removed. Daniel
participants (3)
-
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
Paul A Bristow