[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190907073419.6a88e318@lwn.net>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists