On 21/01/15 11:06, Dan McGee wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 20/01/15 06:38 PM, Dan McGee wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/01/15 04:26, Robin de Rooij wrote: >>>>> From 749dde01efdde4c69491c36c1244a112de54ce52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>> From: Robin de Rooij <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:36:00 +0100 >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Changed copyright to 2006 - 2015 in version info >>>>> >>>>> The copyright notice still displayed: 2006 - 2014. I changed the >> version >>>>> method to 2006 - 2015 >>>>> >>>> >>>> This needs to be part of a larger patch that changes all our copyright >>>> years to the correct range. >>>> >>> >>> We go through this seemingly silly exercise every year. Is it truly >>> necessary? >> >> AFAIK, it does have meaning (extends the lifetime of the copyright, >> which expires N years after that date) but nothing stops you from >> treating the entire project as one work and only having a top-level >> license + copyright headers. >> > > Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear here - I meant the "update every file" exercise, > not the "we should extend the copyright dates somewhere" bit. >
At a minimum, alpm.h and alpm_list.h need a full copyright. I'd prefer that we added a make rule that does it automatically - many of the GNU toolchain software have done this. Allan
