Adding the third-party tool: lcov-v1.9

Adding the third-party tool: lcov-v1.9
Pristine condition, original packaging !
Added just README.chromium and LICENSE files

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=102477

[John Grabowski, 2011-09-19 19:16:05]

LGTM if comments addressed.
Please wait for 2nd reviewer from Chromium.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
File third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:10: 
Quick hint on why we have 2 lcovs in Chromium tree and possibly a timeframe when
it'll become just one.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:11: N.B.: This code will not be shipped
with Chrome. It is only part of the build/test infrastructure.
>80

[Mark Mentovai, 2011-09-19 19:20:18]

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE
File third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE#ne...
third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE:1: Pulled from usr/bin/lcov
What’s this mean? Whose /usr/bin/lcov? Where? Why? Is the license really nowhere
in the lcov source tree? It seems to exist in the COPYING file, rendering this
file an unnecessary confusing distraction.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
File third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:1: Name: LCOV - the LTP GCOV extension
Should the directory be lcov instead of lcov-1.9?

We already have third_party/lcov. How is this different?

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:5: License: Free. Copyright (c)
International Business Machines  Corp., 2002,2010
“Free” is not a license. Neither is a copyright statement.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:6: License File: ./LICENSE
Just LICENSE, no dot.

[philmarti, 2011-09-22 10:15:09]

OK, I just realised that this tool didn't publish my comments earlier. I'm
trying again.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE
File third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE#ne...
third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE:1: Pulled from usr/bin/lcov
On 2011/09/19 19:20:18, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> What’s this mean? Whose /usr/bin/lcov? Where? Why? Is the license really
nowhere
> in the lcov source tree? It seems to exist in the COPYING file, rendering this
> file an unnecessary confusing distraction.

This file is a requirement for third-party tools.
There is no slash in front of usr/bin/lcov. Maybe I should have said
./usr/bin/lcov or third_party/lcov-1.9/usr/bin/lcov ? Let me know what you
prefer and if it helps making more sense. Sorry for being ambiguous.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
File third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:1: Name: LCOV - the LTP GCOV extension
On 2011/09/19 19:20:18, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Should the directory be lcov instead of lcov-1.9?
> 
> We already have third_party/lcov. How is this different?

third-party/lcov contains the v1.6
I just want to differenciate. I don't want to overwrite either so I don't break
any other tools.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:5: License: Free. Copyright (c)
International Business Machines  Corp., 2002,2010
On 2011/09/19 19:20:18, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> “Free” is not a license. Neither is a copyright statement.

You are probably right but it's verbatim what was in the header of every file in
that distrib.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:6: License File: ./LICENSE
On 2011/09/19 19:20:18, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Just LICENSE, no dot.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:10: 
On 2011/09/19 19:16:05, John Grabowski wrote:
> Quick hint on why we have 2 lcovs in Chromium tree and possibly a timeframe
when
> it'll become just one.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chr...
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:11: N.B.: This code will not be shipped
with Chrome. It is only part of the build/test infrastructure.
On 2011/09/19 19:16:05, John Grabowski wrote:
> >80

Done.

[Mark Mentovai, 2011-09-22 13:54:05]

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE
File third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/1/third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE#ne...
third_party/lcov-1.9/LICENSE:1: Pulled from usr/bin/lcov
philmarti wrote:
> On 2011/09/19 19:20:18, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> > What’s this mean? Whose /usr/bin/lcov? Where? Why? Is the license really
> nowhere
> > in the lcov source tree? It seems to exist in the COPYING file, rendering
this
> > file an unnecessary confusing distraction.
> 
> This file is a requirement for third-party tools.
> There is no slash in front of usr/bin/lcov. Maybe I should have said
> ./usr/bin/lcov or third_party/lcov-1.9/usr/bin/lcov ? Let me know what you
> prefer and if it helps making more sense. Sorry for being ambiguous.

It would be bin/lcov, or better as third_party/lcov-1.9/bin/lcov, but you’re
going to remove this LICENSE file anyway so it’s not necessary.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
File third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:5: License: Free. Copyright (c)
International Business Machines  Corp., 2002,2010
This is still not correct. It should describe the form of license in use. “Free”
and a copyright statement still aren’t licenses. It should read:

License: GPLv2 or later

as that appears to be the license for this package.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:6: License File: LICENSE
This should be:

License File: COPYING

and you should remove the LICENSE file that you added, it’s not necessary.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:8: Description:
This file needs a Local Modifications section. It can say:

Local Modifications: None

[philmarti, 2011-09-22 14:39:02]

Thanks for the suggestions, Mark.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
File third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:5: License: Free. Copyright (c)
International Business Machines  Corp., 2002,2010
On 2011/09/22 13:54:05, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> This is still not correct. It should describe the form of license in use.
“Free”
> and a copyright statement still aren’t licenses. It should read:
> 
> License: GPLv2 or later
> 
> as that appears to be the license for this package.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:6: License File: LICENSE
On 2011/09/22 13:54:05, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> This should be:
> 
> License File: COPYING
> 
> and you should remove the LICENSE file that you added, it’s not necessary.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/7926007/diff/9001/third_party/lcov-1.9/README....
third_party/lcov-1.9/README.chromium:8: Description:
On 2011/09/22 13:54:05, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> This file needs a Local Modifications section. It can say:
> 
> Local Modifications: None

Done.

[Mark Mentovai, 2011-09-22 15:05:36]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-09-23 09:44:51]

CQ is trying tha patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/philmarti@google.com/7926007/16001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2011-09-23 11:12:22]

Change committed as 102477

[M-A Ruel, 2011-09-23 12:15:04]

Is this needed on all platforms?

[M-A Ruel, 2011-09-23 12:18:24]

On 2011/09/23 12:15:04, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
> Is this needed on all platforms?

Oh I see it's to upgrade from 1.7.