linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 7 Sep 2019 07:34:19 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Doug Smythies <doug.smythies@...il.com>,
        Aurélien Cedeyn <aurelien.cedeyn@...il.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Armijn Hemel <armijn@...ldur.nl>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263

On Thu,  5 Sep 2019 16:57:47 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> wrote:

> The  description at Documentation/process/license-rules.rst is very strict
> with regards to the position where the SPDX tags should be.
> 
> In the past several developers and maintainers interpreted it on a
> more permissive way, placing the SPDX header between lines 1 to 15, 
> with are the ones which the  scripts/spdxcheck.py script verifies.
> 
> However, recently, devs are becoming more strict about such
> requirement and want it to strictly follow the rule, with states that
> the SPDX rule should be at the first line ever on most files, and
> at the second line for scripts.
> 
> Well, for Python script, such requirement causes violation to PEP-263, 
> making regressions on scripts that contain encoding lines, as PEP-263
> also states about the same.
> 
> This series addresses it.

So I really don't want to be overly difficult here, but I would like to
approach this from yet another angle...

> Patches 1 to 3 fix some Python scripts that violates PEP-263;

I just checked all of those scripts, and they are all just plain ASCII.
So it really doesn't matter whether the environment defaults to UTF-8 or
ASCII here.  So, in other words, we really shouldn't need to define the
encoding at all.

This suggests to me that we're adding a bunch of complications that we
don't necessarily need.  What am I missing here?

Educate me properly and I'll not try to stand in the way of all this...

Thanks,

jon