[Buildroot] legal-info too permissive?

[Buildroot] legal-info too permissive?

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Luca,

Looking at
http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/183/183d0af8c692b8c90b5b136999a0661fc7893b3a/build-end.log,
one can see:

cat: /home/test/test/2/output/build/neon-0.29.6/src/COPYING: No such file or directory

so it seems like the neon legal informations are not correct (or no
longer correct). This should be fixed of course, but the thing that
surprises me here is that the 'make legal-info' apparently didn't
return with an error. So the overall build was considered successful,
even though some license information is obviously wrong in this neon
package.

In this intentional? Shouldn't 'make legal-info' be more restrictive,
and bail out with an error if some license file cannot be found in the
source code? At least the latter would be the most useful behavior for
the autobuilders.

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] legal-info too permissive?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:

Hi,

 Thomas> In this intentional? Shouldn't 'make legal-info' be more
 Thomas> restrictive, and bail out with an error if some license file
 Thomas> cannot be found in the source code? At least the latter would
 Thomas> be the most useful behavior for the autobuilders.

I agree.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] legal-info too permissive?

[Luca Ceresoli]

Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello Luca,
>
> Looking at
> http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/183/183d0af8c692b8c90b5b136999a0661fc7893b3a/build-end.log,
> one can see:
>
> cat: /home/test/test/2/output/build/neon-0.29.6/src/COPYING: No such file or directory
>
> so it seems like the neon legal informations are not correct (or no
> longer correct). This should be fixed of course, but the thing that
> surprises me here is that the 'make legal-info' apparently didn't
> return with an error. So the overall build was considered successful,
> even though some license information is obviously wrong in this neon
> package.
>
> In this intentional? Shouldn't 'make legal-info' be more restrictive,
> and bail out with an error if some license file cannot be found in the
> source code? At least the latter would be the most useful behavior for
> the autobuilders.

This is not intentional, it is a bug in the legal-info infrastructure.
Thanks for reporting!

The problem lies in the loopthat iterates over license files:

 >        @for F in $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES); do \
 >                $(call 
legal-license-file,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),$$$${F},$$($(2)_DIR)/$$$${F}); \
 >                done

The loop errors out only if the last file is missing. If a preceding
file is missing, it goes on carelessly.

In the case of neon:
 > NEON_LICENSE_FILES = src/COPYING.LIB src/COPYING README
the missing file is the second out of three.

I am looking into fixing this.

Luca

[Buildroot] legal-info too permissive?

[Luca Ceresoli]

Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Hello Luca,
>>
>> Looking at
>> http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/183/183d0af8c692b8c90b5b136999a0661fc7893b3a/build-end.log, 
>>
>> one can see:
>>
>> cat: /home/test/test/2/output/build/neon-0.29.6/src/COPYING: No such 
>> file or directory
>>
>> so it seems like the neon legal informations are not correct (or no
>> longer correct). This should be fixed of course, but the thing that
>> surprises me here is that the 'make legal-info' apparently didn't
>> return with an error. So the overall build was considered successful,
>> even though some license information is obviously wrong in this neon
>> package.
>>
>> In this intentional? Shouldn't 'make legal-info' be more restrictive,
>> and bail out with an error if some license file cannot be found in the
>> source code? At least the latter would be the most useful behavior for
>> the autobuilders.
>
> This is not intentional, it is a bug in the legal-info infrastructure.
> Thanks for reporting!
>
> The problem lies in the loopthat iterates over license files:
>
> >        @for F in $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES); do \
> >                $(call 
> legal-license-file,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),$$$${F},$$($(2)_DIR)/$$$${F}); \
> >                done
>
> The loop errors out only if the last file is missing. If a preceding
> file is missing, it goes on carelessly.
>
> In the case of neon:
> > NEON_LICENSE_FILES = src/COPYING.LIB src/COPYING README
> the missing file is the second out of three.
>
> I am looking into fixing this.

I just sent a patch to fix this.

The neon package still needs to be fixed.

Luca