James Carlson wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> James Carlson wrote: >>> General: >>> >>> There should be a prototype mapfile in usr/src/prototypes/. >> I created usr/src/prototypes/prototype.mapfile-vers > > OK; thanks. Odd that this new prototype file contains this comment: > > # Generic interface definition for usr/src/cmd/sgs/libld. > > Not all new mapfiles should have this, should they?
No. Fixed, and thank you... >>> Also, I note that you've changed the copyright on all of these >>> files. Maybe it's too late now, but my previous understanding was >>> that copyright dates are not supposed to be changed if only trivial >>> changes (such as changes to comments) are made, and *most* of these >>> changes are in fact trivial. >> I've not heard that. My understanding is, if you touch it, you >> update the copyright. > > Not quite so. Here are some references: > > http://onnv.sfbay/copyright-policy.html > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/companion-discuss/2006-October/000968.html > > The year changes only with "significant modification." Otherwise, > we're claiming a renewed copyright when we haven't created anything > new, and that's ungood. (_Maybe_ this is "documentation" and that'd > be the slender reed that you use to justify the mass change ...) > >> I think copyrightchk enforces this, and >> isn't it the rule that 'hg pbchk' needs to be clean? > > Unless there are reasons to the contrary, yes. > >> In any event, I would certainly appreciate not having to go >> back and edit these dates... > > OK. It should be doable with a script, but "too hard to do compared > to severity and uncertainty of issue" isn't a completely unexpected > answer. I'd never claim "too hard" for something like this. I've simply been trained to do what pbchk tells me... :-) OK... I'll roll back the copyrights... - Ali
