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

[Markus Heiser]

Am 07.09.19 um 15:34 schrieb Jonathan Corbet:
> On Thu,  5 Sep 2019 16:57:47 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Thats what I mean [1] .. lets patch the description in the license-rules.rst::

- first line for the OS (shebang)
- second line for environment (python-encoding, editor-mode, ...)
- third and more lines for application (SPDX use) ..

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg33240.html

-- Markus --

> 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