From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C33E0030B for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBBMCL8B022433; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:12:21 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22269-01; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:12:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBBMCCjE022427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:12:14 GMT Message-ID: <1323641532.2731.5.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Andrei Gherzan Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:12:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4EE4D5FA.3050604@gherzan.ro> References: <4EE4D5FA.3050604@gherzan.ro> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:12:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 18:10 +0200, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > I tried something else today. > > I created from scratch a new image-minimal and i added wpa-supplicant to > IMAGE_INSTALL - rpm's names are wpa-supplicant-[stuff]. After finishing > this image i could see that gnutls-extra is again in rootfs even if i > excluded GPLv3 from build. After searching a little i could see that > gnutls is a dependency for wpa-supplicant and, in the generated gnutls > spec, that gnutls-extra is required by gnutls-bin. > > If bin requires extra than this build should have ended with an error... > no provider as GPLv3 excluded. Am i right? Are you running a build which includes GPLv3, then running a build excluding GPLv3? I suspect doing that could confuse the system a little but I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. If on the other hand you always exclude GPLv3 from a given build directory, there shouldn't be any way for it to become contaminated. There are various changes in master which are working towards making the license checking a build and runtime check rather than the build time check in 1.1. Cheers, Richard