Summary:	ASTERISK-09697: Makefile Header
Reporter:	Andrew Latham (lathama)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2007-06-17 13:16:55	Date Closed:	2011-06-07 14:10:39
Priority:	Trivial	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Documentation
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) asterisk.diff ( 1) makefileheader.txt
Description:	Streamlined Makefile headers Format is as follows: # # Project name # Project description # # Copyright YYYY, YYYY # Copyright holder <email> # # Please see the License file in this folder for # complete licensing details # # # Makefile level # Copyright notices following guidelines from this page.... http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html#Copyright-Notices Further insight on copyright notice may be needed
Comments:	By: Jared Smith (jsmith) 2007-06-18 08:41:43 I'll let others comment on whether or not this is needed. In the meantime, your file is not actually a patch in unified diff format.  In order to save developer's time, you should probably create the patch in the proper format. By: Andrew Latham (lathama) 2007-06-18 08:55:44 A true diff is on the way, I need to catch the 1.2 and 1.4 stable and the trunk so I get it set for all of them the same once......  Sorry for the wait.... By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2007-06-18 09:43:48 Asterisk is not an FSF/GNU project, so there is no particular need to follow their Makefile copyright notice/header guidelines. Also, we don't put copies of the license information in each directory (there are no 'folders'), so that text would have to be changed. I'm not opposed to making the Makefile headers consistent, but the changes should be kept to a minimum... just clean them up to be consistent, not reformat them to match an arbitrary standard. By: Andrew Latham (lathama) 2007-06-18 09:50:46 Kevin, I wanted them to list what they were, while I was working on something.   Another developer encouraged me to submit my ideas as he enjoyed them.  I searched for "makefile standards" and GNU just happened to be the first and most informative source, I don't agree with everything but its a start.  I noticed that the License file was in most all the projects so instead of the short GPL/whatever I put a reference to the License file (and I see what you mean with the folders, will update). Let me get the diff done and then you can add/edit to your hearts content.  I have  additional updates to the Makefiles and am doing one at a time.  Thanks for your time and sorry for the first bad diff By: Andrew Latham (lathama) 2007-06-19 09:17:36 I just submitted a diff from the svn trunk for the top level Asterisk Makefile.  I would love input before I do all the rest.  This may appear unneeded but the structure will help. By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2007-06-19 15:46:07 Comments: 1) I don't see any value in listing every individual year that the copyright covers, it's just burdensome to maintain. 2) The copyright on the compilation entitled Asterisk is specifically held by 'Digium, Inc.', and as such there is a good reason why 'Copyright (C) ...' and 'Digium, Inc.' appear next to each other. The names of any other copyright holders within individual files should be listed separately as authors, with some sort of attribution. In general Mark Spencer's name being left in those files is as a courtesy (out of respect for him creating Asterisk and many of those files) but not as a copyright holder. 3) If you are going to change the text referencing the GPL and the project, you should use the header block we already have in the source files (see main/asterisk.c as an example), since it is much more complete. By: Andrew Latham (lathama) 2007-06-19 16:10:00 Kevin Thanks, I see you guys are bug squashing today.. good job. Years: From what I have read, and I could be wrong, every year that a change has been made should be listed.  So lets say that zaptel was not updated this year, then 2007 would not be included.  It looks stupid on active projects I agree, however the premise is sound. Copyright: I didn't want to change it, the years pushed it down.  According to the copyright page (library of congress or what ever) the (c) or (C) is not accepted and they suggest the use of Copyright, which in hindsight makes sense and shows that everyone has been doing it redundantly for a long time. GPL: Again, I didn't want to change it but the license file says everything that needs said. I will look at the .c header. By: Andrew Latham (lathama) 2007-06-26 14:15:02 Please close, Unresolved. By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2007-06-26 17:58:51 Closed per request.