Hi Lassi,

Lassi Kortela <[email protected]> writes:

>> I think I prefer the SPDX comments inside the .gitgnore file though,
>> even if just for uniformity with the rest.
>
> I've expressed my opinion. The rest of you can vote on it.
>
>>> Comments in .html files should probably go below the <html> tag. See
>>> e.g.https://stackoverflow.com/questions/941100/can-comments-appear-before-the-doctype-declaration
>
> Does the reuse tool place HTML comments before the <html> tag? That
> should probably be fixed in the tool.

It should, if you are confident this is a problem.

>>> for more natural looking notices. E.g.
>>>
>>> # Copyright 2015 Arthur A. Gleckler<[email protected]>
>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>
>> I left the reuse tool take care of producing these (using something like
>> "reuse annotate -lMIT -y2015 -c'Arthur A. Gleckler<[email protected]>' 
>> .gitignore")
>> When there are multiple copyright holders, they are grouped together
>> as
>> in:
>> # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2015 Some One <email1>
>> # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2018 Another One <email2>
>> #
>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>> I don't feel strongly about it; I prefer to stick to what the tool
>> produces as it makes my life easier.
>
> This works: reuse annotate example.scm --copyright "Some One"
> --license MIT --copyright-style string --merge-copyrights

I meant to say I find the output agreeable; having the copyright holders
bloc separated from the license identifier by a blank line makes both
easy to visually differentiate.

> It produces:
>
> ; Copyright 2023 Some One
> ;
> ; SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>
> It uses ";" instead of the more sensible ";;" or ";;;".

That's a problem known upstream [0] for which I've sent a PR in [1].

[0]  https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues/637
[1]  https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/pull/874

> To get rid of the blank line, it seems we would have to use a custom
> template that has to be copied into each SRFI's repo. Unwieldy.

My opinion is that it's not worth the hassle.  It's a minor cosmetic
detail.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Reply via email to