From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Martincoski Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:52:14 -0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/9] A checkpackage script that verifies a package coding style References: <8f81bbcd-b8a5-a63e-4f7f-37fb0fce66dd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58991a3e51c12_1b4d3ff5d2019f982964@ultri3.mail> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Romain, On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 03:56 PM, Romain Naour wrote: > Le 31/12/2016 ? 04:21, Ricardo Martincoski a ?crit : [snip] >> Remaining patches include check functions for each type of file. I put the >> patches that I think are most likely to be rejected in the end. > > I don't really agree with that, especially for the last one (check *.mk for typo > in variable) since it will catch easily our/my keyboard dyslexia symptoms :) :) > >> >> Also in the series there is a blob for the manual trying to clarify the expected >> format for help text. >> >> I did not include yet: >> - entry to DEVELOPERS (just because it is the first iteration); >> - explicit license entry (I guess this way the script inherits the Buildroot >> license). >> >> For each patch I include using 'git notes': >> - the time it takes to run for all current packages; > > Well ~3 seconds to check all packages with all check enable is not bad. > >> - for each check function: >> - the number of warnings it generates for all current packages; >> - sample output running on the (bad) example package. [snip] >> >> [1] http://elinux.org/Buildroot#Todo_list > > The check-package script find several thousand (~2500) coding style issue or > typos. I think the most important now is to fix all typos in variable since it > can lead to a build failure or a licensing issue. I will start with the easy ones :) among the typos in variables. > > I'll continue to test this series and probably use it during the next Buildroot > meeting. Nice. Thanks. Best regards, Ricardo