On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:39:42PM +0100, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> or at least this with the id on the first and the // comment style > >> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 I snipped a bit of context here, the full example was actually: | > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 | > +/* | > + * Copyright (C) 2017 Spreadtrum Communications Inc. | > + * > > Are you saying SPDX requires C++ style comments? That seems totally > > broken. > In can understand your point, but for reference please check Linus > [1][2][3], Thomas[4] and Greg[5] comments on the topic. > I am just a lowly messenger and even though I personally agree with > Linus points and taste in this area, my weightless voice does not > matter. OK, so that's not quite what you were saying then. The desire is to have the SPDX block be the first line of the file (which you didn't mention) and in general to encourage the use of C++ comments. The second example you gave there with the C++ comment followed immediately by a C comment is definitely bogus. If this is going to be the standard we probably need tooling to enforce it, it's an extra requirement compared to both cross project SPDX needs and existing Linux practice so it's going to be really easy to end up with different things. I have to say I'd have thought that if we were going to have a fixed format for ease of parsing we'd be putting it at the end of files where we already often have a block of very regularly formatted MODULE_FOO() lines (not that that's 100% regular but it's more common than not) but it doesn't make much difference and we've already got a large number of these SPDX things done so it's a bit of a done deal.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
