From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:33:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/2] getent: new package In-Reply-To: References: <1408355649-28891-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1408355649-28891-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20140818165248.393a57db@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140818173352.1e11793e@free-electrons.com> 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 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 _LICENSE, and no value defined for _LICENSE_FILES. According to http://autobuild.buildroot.org/stats/, we have 76 packages without _LICENSE, and 152 without _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