On Friday 27 November 2015 10:52:47 Wookey wrote: > This correctly catalogued the copyrights in the python file, but none of the > list files
Indeed. The .lisp extension is missing from the regexp used by licensecheck to decide whether to scan a file or not. That's easy to fix. > Now if I use licensecheck manually with a changed -c regex: > licensecheck -r -c=* --copyright * > It notices the copyrights in the list files: > s-xml-rpc/test/test-base64.lisp: UNKNOWN > [Copyright: 2002, 2004 Sven Van Caekenberghe, Beta Nine BVBA] > > But it still fails to grok the licence. I can tweak licensecheck to scan the LLGPL. > Can scan-copyrights call licencecheck in such a way that it looks look > in more (all?) files by default? Scanning all files by default is a can of worms: some files are binary (png, jpg...) and will lead to a lot of garbage issued by licensecheck. This can't be the default. And I'm reluctant to change scan-copyright to use -c '.*' because of the extra processing required to weed garbage out. > Or perhaps this bugreport should be > directed to licensecheck to make the default more comprehensive. Yes. Making licensecheck more comprehensive will benefit more tools (and people). I'm thinking of license-reconcile and some other packages like ghostscript that have a fairly advanced processing of the output of licensecheck. I will reassign this bug to devscripts > Really > I want a tool like this to look in everything it can (not just code > and docs: graphics and test files too). Missing things entirely is > much worse than false positives I can check and weed out. > If it can't > reliably find nearly all the licence and copyright notices in the tree > then it doesn't really help much as I still have to look in every damn > file myself, by hand. Good point. May be licensecheck should list files that are not scanned (instead of returning garbage) ? Thoughts ? All the best
