[Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/2] getent: new package

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:07:08 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:

> > Which license text file should be used? In neither of the uclibc/musl
> > or glibc cases we have access to the license text. I can include a
> > COPYING file in package/getent/, but that's going to be 100x times
> > larger than the getent script :)
> 
> Hmm, not sure what to do here.
> 
> If we don't specify anything, the developer wanting to distribute an
> image will have to manually add a LGPL2.1 license text.
> 
> Is there a big problem that the license text would be so much bigger
> than the script itself? If we'd have multiple packages with source
> included in buildroot, we could move the licenses to one directory to
> avoid duplication.
> 
> But I have no strong opinion here...

Note that we have a lot of packages that have a value for
<pkg>_LICENSE, and no value defined for <pkg>_LICENSE_FILES.

According to http://autobuild.buildroot.org/stats/, we have 76 packages
without <pkg>_LICENSE, and 152 without <pkg>_LICENSE_FILES. Therefore, I
think that's a more global problem, not limited to just this package.
At least, I don't think it should be a blocking issue, especially
considering the fact that this set of patches is meant to fix a bug
before the release.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com