cve-check: fix comments

This implements various fixes in comments in cve-check.bbclass
In particular, the "whitlisted" typo is important as the "whitelisted"
word is going to be replaced in a near future.

Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

diff --git a/meta/classes/cve-check.bbclass b/meta/classes/cve-check.bbclass
index a3fc9c2623c4f29d36536bb8aaea3e8f99922dec..acdf005a72add1b1eab8bd738d57b64cb65e3c0c 100644 (file)
--- a/meta/classes/cve-check.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/cve-check.bbclass
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 # the only method to check against CVEs. Running this tool
 # doesn't guarantee your packages are free of CVEs.
 
-# The product name that the CVE database uses.  Defaults to BPN, but may need to
+# The product name that the CVE database uses defaults to BPN, but may need to
 # be overriden per recipe (for example tiff.bb sets CVE_PRODUCT=libtiff).
 CVE_PRODUCT ??= "${BPN}"
 CVE_VERSION ??= "${PV}"
@@ -56,11 +56,11 @@ CVE_CHECK_WHITELIST ?= ""
 # Layers to be excluded
 CVE_CHECK_LAYER_EXCLUDELIST ??= ""
 
-# Layers to be included 
+# Layers to be included
 CVE_CHECK_LAYER_INCLUDELIST ??= ""
 
 
-# set to "alphabetical" for version using single alphabetical character as increament release
+# set to "alphabetical" for version using single alphabetical character as increment release
 CVE_VERSION_SUFFIX ??= ""
 
 python cve_save_summary_handler () {
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ def check_cves(d, patched_cves):
         return ([], [], [])
     pv = d.getVar("CVE_VERSION").split("+git")[0]
 
-    # If the recipe has been whitlisted we return empty lists
+    # If the recipe has been whitelisted we return empty lists
     if pn in d.getVar("CVE_CHECK_PN_WHITELIST").split():
         bb.note("Recipe has been whitelisted, skipping check")
         return ([], [], [])