From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:07:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Some legal-info observations/problems In-Reply-To: References: <20131002172307.0d6f02ea@skate> <524C4AD4.9040902@lucaceresoli.net> <524D9DE2.7090509@mind.be> Message-ID: <20131004110704.78f5b1a6@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:54:55 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > To come back on the comment ThomasP made about 'FOO =' and not > defining FOO leading to the same empty FOO variable: this does not > mean we cannot differentiate both cases: with $(origin FOO) you can. You can also use "ifdef" I believe. But still, I believe that having: BLEH_LICENSE_FILES = in a package looks somewhat strange. I found find it more explicit/readable to have: BLEH_LICENSE_FILES = N/A BLEH_LICENSE_FILES = none BLEH_LICENSE_FILES = NONE (pick your choice). > > That said, it would be good if we would just error out when a license is > > defined but no license files are provided. Now we check for that during > > review (and require an explicit comment if no license file exists), but it's > > of course even better if that can be done during autobuilder tests. > > When you say 'error out' you mean actually aborting the make process? > Currently, anomalies in the legal-info area are just warnings hinting > the developer he has to take some action. Do we really want to error > out in such cases? > > But if we will make a distinction between an undefined > FOO_LICENSE_FILES (an anomaly) and an empty/magic one, then the > autobuilder package stats could be updated with an extra column, or a > YES/NO/EMPTY value in the existing column. > http://autobuild.buildroot.org/stats/ > > (by the way: where is the code that generates these stats? I had > expected to find it in buildroot-test, but didn't.) support/scripts/pkg-stats in your favorite Buildroot tree :-) > But, re-thinking this, I think none of these are actually very good: > there _should_ be a license file but it is missing. So it's not > 'not-applicable', and it's not 'none'. Rather, something like: > FOO_LICENSE_FILES = missing > FOO_LICENSE_FILES = not-provided > FOO_LICENSE_FILES = none-provided I'm fine with either of those choices, except 'missing'. There is very often a 'missing' script in autotools-based packages. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com