Re: RFC: Package exclusion

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 00:20:14 Joshua Lock wrote:
> >  * Check when calculating dependencies if anything is scheduled to be
> >  built  that is on the blacklist - if any are, gather all of them up and
> >  then  stop and list them in an error message along with reason and
> >  depchain for each one
> 
> This sounds like overlap with a task Scott Garman is set to work on
> (Error handling in bitbake), let's make sure you guys are collaborating
> here.
> http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=542

I hadn't considered this - you may well be right. It depends on how Scott 
proposes to attack that particular problem, I will check with him.
 
> >  * Replace COMMERCIAL* with some more generic exclusion mechanism that
> >  allows the reason to be defined as part of the exclusion list?
> 
> Sounds reasonable, care to elaborate? Something like:
> 
> COMMERCIAL_LICENSE = "naughty packages from copyright hell"
> PERL_PACKAGES = "packages I don't want to include because I dislike
> Perl"
> EXCLUDED_PATTERNS = "PERL_PACKAGES COMMERCIAL_LICENSE"

More like:

EXCLUDED_PACKAGES += "broken1,broken2:These packages are broken by design and 
not supported;"
EXCLUDED_PACKAGES += "licenserequired,clickthru,special1:These packages 
require a special license agreement;"

The example syntax is horrible but you get the idea.

> >  * As a helper for non-en_US users, fail on parse if user defines any of
> >  the *LICENSE* variables as *LICENCE*? (we definitely don't want the build
> >  to continue and just ignore this as the user might not realise what has
> > happened)
> 
> Darn tootin!

I think you meant to say "hear hear!" or maybe even "good show!"... ;)
 
Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre