Am 16. Dezember 2024 01:29:04 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <[email protected]>: >Hi Tom, > >On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 10:09, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> > Hi Heinrich, >> > >> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote: >> > > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command. >> > > >> > > Shouldn't this be two patches? >> > >> > Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit, >> > since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where >> > are the docs and tests! >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >> > > > --- >> > > > >> > > > doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 >> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > doc/usage/index.rst | 1 + >> > > > test/cmd/Makefile | 1 + >> > > > test/cmd/part_find.c | 42 +++++++++++++ >> > > > 4 files changed, 163 insertions(+) >> > > > create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst >> > > > create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst >> > > > new file mode 100644 >> > > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5 >> > > > --- /dev/null >> > > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst >> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ >> > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+: >> > > >> > > This is not a valid SPDX identifier. >> > > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html >> > >> > I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't >> > fully understand it: >> > >> > The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there. >> > In the source tree: >> > >> > $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l >> > 13406 >> > $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l >> > 1847 >> > >> > I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember. >> > >> > But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw >> > a warning? >> >> As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and >> GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a >> best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to >> use the old tag, just something that should be avoided. > >OK, I will try to remember this. > >At minimum, if this is important, Licenses/README should be updated to >drop the old license? > >Heinrich, please update checkpatch to warn about this. > >Regards, >Simon
See <https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/>
