lgplv3-comment breaks autorevision when used with ./configure ...

Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

(1/3) > >>

Jenna:
autorevision.cpp expects to find a comment with the (svn-)revision in the first line of autorevision.h, but the lgplv3-comment is placed before it.

In addition, the comment is missing from the header-file generated by autorevision.cpp if the revision has changed (or autorevision believes it has changed).

Here is a patch that fixes both issues:

--- Code: ------ codeblocks-1.0svn.orig/src/include/autorevision.h.in 2008-03-01 09:43:53.000000000 +0100
+++ codeblocks-1.0svn.work/src/include/autorevision.h.in 2008-03-02 00:33:02.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
+/*@REVISION@*/^M
/*^M
* This file is part of the Code::Blocks IDE and licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3^M
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html^M
*/^M
^M
-/*@REVISION@*/^M
#ifndef AUTOREVISION_H^M
#define AUTOREVISION_H^M
^M
--- codeblocks-1.0svn.orig/src/build_tools/autorevision/autorevision.cpp 2008-03-01 09:18:46.000000000 +0100
+++ codeblocks-1.0svn.work/src/build_tools/autorevision/autorevision.cpp 2008-03-02 00:37:42.000000000 +0100
@@ -163,6 +163,10 @@
}

fprintf(header, "%s\n", comment.c_str());
+ fprintf(header, "/*\n");
+ fprintf(header, " * * This file is part of the Code::Blocks IDE and licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3\n");
+ fprintf(header, " * * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html\n");
+ fprintf(header, " * */\n");
fprintf(header, "//don't include this header, only configmanager-revision.cpp should do this.\n");
fprintf(header, "#ifndef AUTOREVISION_H\n");
fprintf(header, "#define AUTOREVISION_H\n\n\n");

--- End code ---

Please consider when trying to apply the patch that the "^M"'s in the above patch are dos-lineednings as seen by vi.

thomas:
Those are no issues, no patch needed. Just delete autorevision.h.

I wonder how the GPLv3 comment got into that file in the first place, though. Anyway, just delete that file, and everything will be good.

Jenna:

--- Quote from: thomas on March 02, 2008, 01:27:25 am ---Those are no issues, no patch needed. Just delete autorevision.h.

--- End quote ---
I tried this of course, but that does not (and can not) work.

The lgplv3-comment is in autorevision.h.in.
Running ./configure creates autorevision.h and expands @REVISION@ and @DATE@.
At compiletime, after creating the executable auto_revision, it is called from it's Makefile:

--- Code: ---all-local: auto_revision
./auto_revision +int +wx +t $(top_srcdir) $(top_srcdir)/src/include/autorevision.h
--- End code ---
and looks for the revision number in the command comment in the first line of autorevision.h .

If it's not found there, or less then the revision number gathered from svn-command, it writes a new autorevision.h.
But if it's build from a source-tree without svn-informations (like I do for my nightlies to keep the tar-balls small) "0" is taken for the revision and "unknown date" for the date.
And that is an issue.

--- Quote from: thomas on March 02, 2008, 01:27:25 am ---I wonder how the GPLv3 comment got into that file in the first place, though. Anyway, just delete that file, and everything will be good.

--- End quote ---
It's there since svn 4910: http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/codeblocks/trunk/src/include/autorevision.h.in?op=diff&rev=4910&sc=1 .
/*@REVISION@*/ should be in the first line, because the WriteOutput-function in autorevision.cpp looks for the revision in the first line.

The second part of the patch is to ensure that the lgplv3-comment is also in the header if it is auto-generated by WriteOutput, because it belongs in the header oif course.

thomas:
Let me clarify. First of all, the GPLv3 notice in autorevision.cpp as well as the "part of Code::Blocks" sentence is technically wrong (it's "GPLv2 or later", and it is not part of Code::Blocks). However, I don't really mind what license it is, so let's just leave that as it is.

The file autorevision.h has no license at all, and it shouldn't have one. While autorevision was programmed with Code::Blocks in mind (and has seen some modifications due to specific needs), it wasn't made especially and exclusively for just this one project. It was written as a (micro-)tool to get a revision number hardcoded into a program automatically. That was at a time when no such thing existed otherwise (in the mean time, there are a few tools that do the same, and better).
Someone who uses autorevision in a different project (which might not be GPL compatible at all) may not want to have his files automatically tagged with a GPL license.
Also, autorevision.h does not contain any original work, it is merely a file that is generated from a project's revision number, so it is really not justifiable to attach a license to it. If that was the case, one could argue that every project managed with Subversion falls under the Subversion license, too.

I don't know exactly what autorevision.h.in does (since I'm no autotools user). In fact, I didn't even know it was there :)
Apparently, it is meant to mimic/provide an autorevision.h file for tarballs (I faintly remember someone did something for that some time in the past).
To address your problem, one solution would be to move the comment to the end of the .in file or remove it alltogether, both of which will make the file compliant. The other (probably better) solution would be to either use the .in file or run autorevision, but not both.

afb:

--- Quote from: thomas on March 02, 2008, 02:08:03 pm ---I don't know exactly what autorevision.h.in does (since I'm no autotools user). In fact, I didn't even know it was there :)
Apparently, it is meant to mimic/provide an autorevision.h file for tarballs (I faintly remember someone did something for that some time in the past).

--- End quote ---

Correct. :-)
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work at the moment (as per above),
and there's also the issue of configure thinking the version is "1.0"

The packages that do get the correct version usually patches out
the call to autorevision, or generate their own tarballs, or both...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version