Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
Prompted by some recent discussion of Boost license and copyright info by the Debian package team,

I have recently been checking on the Boost.Multiprecision library and run the Boost inspect program https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/tools/inspect/ (originally written by Beman Dawes in 2003 and revised several times since).

I’ve made some minor cosmetic changes to the program and the rather sparse documentation to make it easier to use  by library authors and give a bit more info.

It checks on compliance with  https://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html.

It’s use has been a little neglected recently but I conclude that we are not doing well enough in providing the proof of copyright and license that we promise.

The results of my run of inspect on the boost/lib folder  using develop branch are not pretty

Problem counts:
  1790 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
  1682 files missing copyright notice

 (but not I suspect quite as bad as they look – some items probably do not need copyright and license).

Now that the 1.71 release is out bar a little shouting, I wonder if we should focus on improving compliance for the next release?

I’d like to propose

1 A boost/tools/inspect/develop branch to refine the inspect program a little and improve the documentation (I have done something on this already for my education and use).

2 Discussion of the bad results (zip attached) to try to find why there are so many reports and to decide what to do.

3 Encourage all authors to run inspect on their library locally and try to remedy the items missing.

4 I suspect that many libraries will have items missing but the authors are also missing.  So someone from the community maintenance team will need to take over and make some decisions on what to do.
Often just providing a copyright claim from the obvious author and Boost license will suffice?

5 Try to improve the compliance with other guidelines.  For example. there are many libraries that are failing to prevent with min and max macros for what of a couple of brackets. Usually (std::numeric_limits<>::max)().  All these will trip up Windows users in a puzzling way.  Please can we just fix these?

Views?

Paul

PS My halo is shining brightly πŸ˜‰  Boost.Multiprecision has a problem count of zero 😊  (and I’m working on Boost.Math)


Boost Inspection Report
Inspect version no 3.1.15
Run Date: 08:44:19 UTC, Saturday 17 August 2019 Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
(See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
Copyright Boost 2019

boost-no-inspect
Inspection from path "libs" including subfolders.
Totals:
  52355 files scanned
  4351 directories scanned (including root)
  3472 problems reported


Problem counts:
  1790 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
  1682 files missing copyright notice

Worst Offenders:
outcome 940
metaparse 556
polygon 228
python 194
beast 192

Summary:
  algorithm (4)
  array (2)
  asio (12)
…




Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK






_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

.inspect_boost_copyright_17Aug2019.7z (18K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019, 18:55 Paul A Bristow via Boost, <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Prompted by some recent discussion of Boost license and copyright info by
> the Debian package team,
>
> [...]
>
> Now that the 1.71 release is out bar a little shouting, I wonder if we
> should focus on improving compliance for the next release?
>
> I’d like to propose
>
> 1 A boost/tools/inspect/develop branch to refine the inspect program a
> little and improve the documentation (I have done something on this already
> for my education and use).
>
> 2 Discussion of the bad results (zip attached) to try to find why there
> are so many reports and to decide what to do.
>
> 3 Encourage all authors to run inspect on their library locally and try to
> remedy the items missing.
>
> 4 I suspect that many libraries will have items missing but the authors
> are also missing.  So someone from the community maintenance team will need
> to take over and make some decisions on what to do.
> Often just providing a copyright claim from the obvious author and Boost
> license will suffice?
>
> 5 Try to improve the compliance with other guidelines.  For example. there
> are many libraries that are failing to prevent with min and max macros for
> what of a couple of brackets. Usually (std::numeric_limits<>::max)().  All
> these will trip up Windows users in a puzzling way.  Please can we just fix
> these?
>


+1


Boost Inspection Report

> Inspect version no 3.1.15
> Run Date: 08:44:19 UTC, Saturday 17 August 2019 Distributed under the
> Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
> (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
> http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
> Copyright Boost 2019
>
> boost-no-inspect
> Inspection from path "libs" including subfolders.
> Totals:
>   52355 files scanned
>   4351 directories scanned (including root)
>   3472 problems reported
>
>
> Problem counts:
>   1790 files missing Boost license info or having wrong reference text
>   1682 files missing copyright notice
>
> Worst Offenders:
> outcome 940
> metaparse 556
> polygon 228
> python 194
> beast 192
>
> Summary:
>   algorithm (4)
>   array (2)
>


FYI, I made an attempt a while ago to fix the array:
https://github.com/boostorg/array/pull/9

--
Mateusz Loskot, [hidden email]
(Sent from mobile, may suffer from top-posting)

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
I fully support Paul's initiative to fix the copyright issues for the next release.

> On 18. Aug 2019, at 18:54, Paul A Bristow via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 1 A boost/tools/inspect/develop branch to refine the inspect program a little and improve the documentation (I have done something on this already for my education and use).

I think this program should be rewritten in Python which would simplify maintaining and using it (no compilation needed, simpler code, Python's string processing is fast enough).

> 3 Encourage all authors to run inspect on their library locally and try to remedy the items missing.

I started to fix some copyright messages in Boost.Histogram, but there is still more to do.

> 4 I suspect that many libraries will have items missing but the authors are also missing.  So someone from the community maintenance team will need to take over and make some decisions on what to do.
> Often just providing a copyright claim from the obvious author and Boost license will suffice?

Sounds reasonable. In any case, we can already make a lot of progress by fixing all the libraries with have active maintainers and then worry about the others.

> 5 Try to improve the compliance with other guidelines.  For example. there are many libraries that are failing to prevent with min and max macros for what of a couple of brackets. Usually (std::numeric_limits<>::max)().  All these will trip up Windows users in a puzzling way.  Please can we just fix these?

The page http://boost.cowic.de/rc/docs-inspect-develop.html should link to the guideline that is violated, https://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html. I didn't understand what was meant at first.

> Views?

- For things like the min/max guideline, a tool that is clever enough to correctly find these issues could also just apply the fix directly in the code. The inspect tool could have a command line option to apply fixes as well or at least suggest the fixed code line.

- To give the inspection report more visibility, there should be an entry in the menu of www.boost.org. Under "Development" we currently have "Master Summary" and "Master Issues". There should also be "Master Inspection Report". And vice versa for "Development *".

Best regards,
Hans


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I fully support Paul's initiative to fix the copyright issues for the next
> release.
>
> > On 18. Aug 2019, at 18:54, Paul A Bristow via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > 1 A boost/tools/inspect/develop branch to refine the inspect program a
> little and improve the documentation (I have done something on this already
> for my education and use).
>
> I think this program should be rewritten in Python which would simplify
> maintaining and using it (no compilation needed, simpler code, Python's
> string processing is fast enough).
>
> - To give the inspection report more visibility, there should be an entry
> in the menu of www.boost.org. Under "Development" we currently have
> "Master Summary" and "Master Issues". There should also be "Master
> Inspection Report". And vice versa for "Development *".
>

It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check Python
program <
https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py>.
as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a per
branch and per library basis as you suggest.


--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
On 19.08.19 17:45, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
> It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check Python
> program <
> https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py>.
> as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a per
> branch and per library basis as you suggest.
>

Do you want to run inspect using this python script or do you want a
full implementation of inspect in python?


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:35 PM Raffi Enficiaud via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 19.08.19 17:45, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> > It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check Python
> > program <
> >
> https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py
> >.
> > as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a
> per
> > branch and per library basis as you suggest.
> >
>
> Do you want to run inspect using this python script or do you want a
> full implementation of inspect in python?
>

We can start with the license checks. And eventually add more inspect
functionality if needed. But the goal is not to run the inspect program
itself preferring to "port" the functionality over.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Raffi Enficiaud via
> Boost
> Sent: 20 August 2019 20:35
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Raffi Enficiaud <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines
>
> On 19.08.19 17:45, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >
> > It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check
> > Python program <
> >
> https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py
> >.
> > as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a
> > per branch and per library basis as you suggest.
> >
>
> Do you want to run inspect using this python script or do you want a full
> implementation of inspect in python?

Won't requiring Python put off some library authors from applying a run the inspect program to their own code?

(Having the Python program will be valuable for providing an externally visible and usable list).

My experience is that one needs to work through ones library fixing each issue and re-running the inspect program - and re-running ones examples and tests to make sure one hasn't screwed up πŸ˜‰

Waiting for the CI system to catch up with that is intolerably slow.

I think that clearing the compliance hurdle only requires some tweaks to the existing inspect program - and some improvements in documentation telling exactly how to run locally, and what to do to be compliant.  

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK









_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list

Am 21.08.19 um 09:32 schrieb Paul A Bristow via Boost:
> Won't requiring Python put off some library authors from applying a run the inspect program to their own code?
>
> (Having the Python program will be valuable for providing an externally visible and usable list).
I rather see it the other way round: Using and maintaining the Python
program will be much easier and faster: Just run it, done. Most devs are
likely using Linux anway where Python is preinstalled. Better than
having to compile something first, probably need to change it due to
false positives and compile again. Then compile own code etc.
> Waiting for the CI system to catch up with that is intolerably slow.
+1 The static checker which can be run without any setup locally would
therefore be a huge bonus.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list


> On 21. Aug 2019, at 09:43, Alexander Grund via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.08.19 um 09:32 schrieb Paul A Bristow via Boost:
>> Won't requiring Python put off some library authors from applying a run the inspect program to their own code?
>>
>> (Having the Python program will be valuable for providing an externally visible and usable list).
> I rather see it the other way round: Using and maintaining the Python program will be much easier and faster: Just run it, done. Most devs are likely using Linux anway where Python is preinstalled. Better than having to compile something first, probably need to change it due to false positives and compile again. Then compile own code etc.

+1 I was just about to write the same thing.

All notable Linux distribution and OSX comes with pre-installed Python. Only Windows does not ship with Python preinstalled.

The threshold to install Python is incredibly low. And it is already used elsewhere, in tools/boostdep/depinst.py


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> On 20. Aug 2019, at 21:40, Rene Rivera via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:35 PM Raffi Enficiaud via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 19.08.19 17:45, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check Python
>>> program <
>>>
>> https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py
>>> .
>>> as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a
>> per
>>> branch and per library basis as you suggest.
>>>
>>
>> Do you want to run inspect using this python script or do you want a
>> full implementation of inspect in python?
>>
>
> We can start with the license checks. And eventually add more inspect
> functionality if needed. But the goal is not to run the inspect program
> itself preferring to "port" the functionality over.

Great, I would like to give it a shot. I am a senior Python developer.

Just running `python status/boost_check_library.py` locally gives an error instead of a helpful usage message. I will work on improving that as well.

Best regards,
Hans

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

> On 20. Aug 2019, at 21:40, Rene Rivera via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:35 PM Raffi Enficiaud via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 19.08.19 17:45, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:57 AM Hans Dembinski via Boost <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> It would be fantastic to see a PR for the existing library check Python
>>> program <
>>>
>> https://github.com/boostorg/boost/blob/develop/status/boost_check_library.py
>>> .
>>> as that would achieve the goal of providing continuous visibility on a
>> per
>>> branch and per library basis as you suggest.
>>>
>>
>> Do you want to run inspect using this python script or do you want a
>> full implementation of inspect in python?
>>
>
> We can start with the license checks. And eventually add more inspect
> functionality if needed. But the goal is not to run the inspect program
> itself preferring to "port" the functionality over.

What is the minimum Python version that has to be supported? Python 2.7?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
> What is the minimum Python version that has to be supported? Python 2.7?

Python 2 is almost EOL. As this is a dev-tool primarily targeted at library developers,
there should be no reason to maintain Python 2 support. Python 3 is even older than
c++11 which is IIRC required by b2.

Is there a list somewhere, which files don't require a license header (e.g. .gitignore)

Best
Mike

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list


> On 21. Aug 2019, at 10:25, Mike via Boost <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> What is the minimum Python version that has to be supported? Python 2.7?
>
> Python 2 is almost EOL. As this is a dev-tool primarily targeted at library developers,
> there should be no reason to maintain Python 2 support. Python 3 is even older than
> c++11 which is IIRC required by b2.

I agree with you, but boost_check_library.py has to work on all the machines which run the Boost Test matrix, therefore the script has to be compatible with the Python versions on these machines. If all of them have Python3 already, great.

I am mainly asking because I would like to replace optparse with argparse, which first appeared in Python2.7.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 11:14, Hans Dembinski via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> What is the minimum Python version that has to be supported? Python 2.7?
>

Python 2 is on its way out, Fedora 31, f.e. will NOT have Python-2.7 by
default anymore.

degski
--
@realdegski
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/06/middleeast/saudi-teen-death-penalty-intl/
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
> All notable Linux distribution and OSX comes with pre-installed Python. Only Windows does not ship with Python preinstalled.

That got a lot better in the most recent Windows 10 update:

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/python/python-in-the-windows-10-may-2019-update/

tldr; python now has a stub executable which takes you to the store
install page. Same as the "bash" stub executable, and soon also
"wordpad" and "paint".

Niall


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Mike via Boost
> Sent: 21 August 2019 09:25
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Mike <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [boost] Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines
>
> > What is the minimum Python version that has to be supported? Python 2.7?
>
> Python 2 is almost EOL. As this is a dev-tool primarily targeted at library
> developers, there should be no reason to maintain Python 2 support. Python 3 is
> even older than
> c++11 which is IIRC required by b2.
>
> Is there a list somewhere, which files don't require a license header (e.g.
> .gitignore)

https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_71_0/tools/inspect/inspect.cpp

but in description in my revised docs:

"File types that are inspected:
C/C++ source code... ".c" ".cpp" ".css" ".cxx" ".h" ".hpp" ".hxx" ".inc" ".ipp"

Boost.Build BJam source code... "Jamfile" ".jam" ".v2"

Other scripts; Python, shell, autoconfig, etc. "configure.in"; "GNUmakefile" "Makefile" ".bat" ".mak" ".pl" ".py" ".sh"

Hypertext, Boost.Book, and other text... "news" "readme" "todo" "NEWS" "README" "TODO" ".boostbook" ".htm" ".html" ".rst" ".sgml" ".shtml" ".txt" ".xml" ".xsd" ".xsl" ".qbk" ".htm" ".html" ".shtml"

But files that are NOT inspected are:

Files that contain boost-no-inspect.
Files in a folder called boost-no-inspect.
Files of type doc/xml re not checked as they may be Doxygen output.
Files of type .bin. (Generated executable files are not required to contain license and copyright.
Folder bin.v2 that contain Boost b2/bjam working sub-folders and files."

Also Folders whose name is prefixed by a dot "." like `.git`.

This gives scope for authors (or others) to decide themselves what can be excluded from inspection by adding "boost-no-inspect".

This means that the inspection program inspect.py itself should have a copyright and license claim πŸ˜‰

HTH

Paul

PS I'm willing to accept that Python is a low bar (though it is yet another widget to install for Microsoftys).  But it's got to work πŸ˜‰

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK







_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:22, Paul A Bristow via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> PS I'm willing to accept that Python is a low bar (though it is yet
> another widget to install for Microsoftys).  But it's got to work πŸ˜‰
>

The python installation process is at least a lot easier than to install
Boost, and it [the installer] does what we dummies softies are used to:
download, run installer, click yes until it stops nagging and then wait. We
softies handle that relatively well, as that's the process with all [the
majority at least] installs. We are blissfully unaware of dependencies or
crt's, though. Ah wait, that [to have awareness] is not necessary by
design. Ah well.

degski
--
@realdegski
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/06/middleeast/saudi-teen-death-penalty-intl/
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of degski via Boost
> Sent: 22 August 2019 04:53
> To: boost <[hidden email]>
> Cc: degski <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:22, Paul A Bristow via Boost < [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > PS I'm willing to accept that Python is a low bar (though it is yet
> > another widget to install for Microsoftys).  But it's got to work πŸ˜‰
> >
>
> The python installation process is at least a lot easier than to install Boost, and it
> [the installer] does what we dummies softies are used to:

I was implying that the *son-of-inspect* Python program has got to work.

The current inspect has worked for nearly two decades and still does.

And John Maddock has just made the CI process run it routinely, so people can see how bad their library is much more easily.

With Multiprecision and Math libraries, it is just the tedious process of checking all the inspect reports and deciding what to do about them.

Lots of errant, tax, max/min macro issues, missing licences (many live generated files that we could manage without licences, though a tip to people writing C++ or other code to generate C++ code, it is easy at the writing stage to code to write the license and copyright at the head of the generated file (but a hassle and possibly troublesome to do it later, especially for some other poor sucker πŸ˜‰)

Lots of files that don't need license and copyright can have boost-no-inspect written into them, or added, or whole folders made no-inspect.  It just needs some work.

The big job is sorting out all the libraries, IMO.

Paul


Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of degski via Boost
> Sent: 22 August 2019 04:53
> To: boost <[hidden email]>
> Cc: degski <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:22, Paul A Bristow via Boost < [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > PS I'm willing to accept that Python is a low bar (though it is yet
> > another widget to install for Microsoftys).  But it's got to work πŸ˜‰
> >
>
> The python installation process is at least a lot easier than to install Boost

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/python/python-in-the-windows-10-may-2019-update/

It's even easier than I thought - I idly open a dosbox and typed Python and lo this came up.

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.18362.295]
(c) 2019 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Paul>python
Python 3.7.0 (v3.7.0:1bf9cc5093, Jun 27 2018, 04:59:51) [MSC v.1914 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>

So no excuse here.

But I am still concerned that we are reinventing the wheel here.

What is really lacking from the original inspect program?  

(I think it is documentation - `what to do' in particular and I'm making progress with improving that).

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB           UK





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compliance with Boost copyright and license guidelines

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list

On 22/08/2019 04:52, degski via Boost wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:22, Paul A Bristow via Boost <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> PS I'm willing to accept that Python is a low bar (though it is yet
>> another widget to install for Microsoftys).  But it's got to work πŸ˜‰
>>
> The python installation process is at least a lot easier than to install
> Boost, and it [the installer] does what we dummies softies are used to:
> download, run installer, click yes until it stops nagging and then wait. We
> softies handle that relatively well, as that's the process with all [the
> majority at least] installs. We are blissfully unaware of dependencies or
> crt's, though. Ah wait, that [to have awareness] is not necessary by
> design. Ah well.

True, but you're going to need (most of) boost anyway.

I've just put up a circle-ci job for Boost.Config that runs the current
inspect program over the library.Β  It also re-builds the docs first, so
I get a check that documentation change PR's will a) build and b) won't
cause inspect regressions.

It runs really quick too - total time including downloading
prerequisites is about 5 minutes.

See https://circleci.com/gh/boostorg/config/12

And the yml is here:
https://github.com/boostorg/config/blob/develop/.circleci/config.yml

Of course if the python version is in some way better, I'll happily just
switch over.

John.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12