On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Bake Timmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wanted to point out an inconsistency in the KFV tables. > > Here is a line from a KFV table (best with fixed width font) to remind > anyone who is new or rusty on this kind of detail: > > Section | Adopter | Adoption Date | Files in Section | % done | % > free | All non-free SW reported | Summary Date | > pci | NEEDS ADOPTING | ? | 251 | 22.31% > |22.31% | N | 28 Jun 08 | > > Of course, dates and adopters have no dependence on subsections. All > other fields, however, do depend on not just the immediate content of > the directory (e.g., "pci" in this case) but also the subsections. > > Thus, if any subsection, subsubsection, etc. has X number of files, > then that figures in the "Files in Section" total. Likewise, if a > file anywhere is found to be non-free, then everything "up the chain" > *should be* affected. However, *this* is not consistently done as it > stands. Inevitably, the top-level sections (as they are right now at > least, kernel and kernel modules) should **eventually** have > (unfortunately but correctly) a value of "Y" as the value of "All > non-free SW reported". > > Apart from being wrong, it is also less useful to put, say, "N/A" in > top-level section *just* on the basis of files in the immediate > corresponding directory. The reader wants to quickly zero in on > problems and is best served by the correct organization of non-free > reporting. > > What do you think? Unless I am wrong here, I will update kfv.el to do > this right. Yes, recursive numbers are useful for a good overview. Can the final output of KFV be a wiki page that simply lists everything non-free for removal? They'll be removed in batch, and digging through the 300+ wiki pages would just be a hassle. Brian
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
