Am 07.09.19 um 18:22 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Em Sat, 7 Sep 2019 16:36:36 +0200
Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
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.
I'm not a python expert, but, from what I researched, and from what I
understood from Markus, if a script tries to print an UTF-8 but the
system's encoding is ASCII (or some other encoding), the python script
will crash.
An (uncatched) exception is thrown, when writing UTF-8 to a stream which
do not support UTF-8 .. this is not a crash, it mostly indicates that the
developper makes some wrong assumption about the use-case. There exists
also the possibility to encode the UTF-8 to ASCII and replace unknown
code points in the out-stream, or to catch the exception.
But this was only academical, where do we have such problems in practice?
At least on media, we define that some Kernel strings can be UTF-8.
See, for example the model field at the media_entity struct:
https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis/kapi/mc-core.html
As stated there:
"media_entity.model must be filled with the device model name as
a NUL-terminated UTF-8 string. The device/model revision must
not be stored in this field."
I've no idea if the two perf scripts that contain the encoding data are
meant to print some strings that may be UTF-8 encoding (like those that
we have at the media subsystem), or if it is just that whomever added
were using e-macs and wanted to make his life simpler. As it is better
to be safe then sorry, on patches 2 and 3, I'm assuming the first case.
Hm, I'am unsure if I understand you correct: Using UTF-8 in the .rst
files are fine .. where do we have scripts generating UTF-8 outputs?
(except the HTML output).
In any case, we do need the encoding line at Sphinx extensions,
although there, the shebang line is optional.
In other words, we have those alternatives:
1) Neither shebang nor coding -> SPDX will be at first line;
2) shebang + SPDX -> SPDX will be at the second line;
3) shebang + coding + SPDX -> SPDX will be at the third line;
4) coding + SPDX
This is something that only makes sense for Sphinx extensions.
IMHO, I would place SPDX at the second line too, but I *guess* Python
may accept it at the first line and would still properly evaluate
coding (as this technically satisfies the text at PEP-263).
Why you are so restrictive .. what we normal do:
- write a shebang line if this file is called directly from the
command line .. but we do not need shebangs on py modules which
are imported from other modules or scripts
- write a encoding line if it is need or helpful / mostly it is helpful
to know the encoding of a text/code file.
- add a SPDX tag
At the end we will have files with one, two or all three of this lines.
And the oder of this lines is, what I wrote:
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...
It seems like it is not only me who is mising something .. what are
the use-cases we have py-Exceptions, what are the use-cases to be so
restrictive as you described above.
.. or did alice get lost in the cave?
Thanks for your patience with me
-- Markus --
