Hi Tom,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 10:09, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote:
Add some documentation and a test for this new command.
Shouldn't this be two patches?
Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit, since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where are the docs and tests!
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ doc/usage/index.rst | 1 + test/cmd/Makefile | 1 + test/cmd/part_find.c | 42 +++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 163 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c
diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
This is not a valid SPDX identifier. Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't fully understand it:
The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there. In the source tree:
$ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l 13406 $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l 1847
I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember.
But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw a warning?
As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to use the old tag, just something that should be avoided.
OK, I will try to remember this.
At minimum, if this is important, Licenses/README should be updated to drop the old license?
Heinrich, please update checkpatch to warn about this.
Regards, Simon