From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:20:34 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 07/21 RFC] package/gcc: handle licensing information In-Reply-To: <20151117123100.16fb8915@free-electrons.com> References: <20151117123100.16fb8915@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20151117212034.GD3703@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, All, On 2015-11-17 12:31 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:47:02 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > We currently install no licensing information for gcc. But the way we > > build gcc makes it tricky to add licensing information: > > > > - we do not build host-gcc; rather, we build host-gcc-initial and > > host-gcc-final, > > > > - we do not want to save licensing information for host-gcc-initial > > and host-gcc-final, because what really makes sense from a user's > > point of view is really host-gcc. > > > > So, we make gcc a real host-generic-package for which we do not define > > any configure, build or install command, but for which we do have > > licensing information. > > > > Then for both host-gcc-initial and host-gcc-final, we fake them to be > > non-redistributable, because the licensing information for them is not > > needed, nor is it needed to save their archives. > > > > Finally, we make both host-gcc-initial and host-gc-final depend on > > host-gcc, so that host-gcc is handled by the legal-info framework. > > > > Thus, legal-info will now save the gcc source and licensing information, > > and ignore host-gcc-initial and host-gcc-final. > > > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > > Cc: Luca Ceresoli > > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni > > This I dislike very much. host-gcc is not a package, and it doesn't > exist. package/gcc/gcc.mk just contains common definitions to both > gcc-initial and gcc-final. Making 'gcc' a package is more confusing > than anything else. OK. > I believe a much better approach is to simply add the licensing > informations to the gcc-final package, and leave gcc-initial with no > licensing information. If having a package named "gcc-final" in the > licensing report is really shocking for you, then we can rename > gcc-final to just "gcc", and have something like: > > + package/ > + gcc/ > + gcc-common.mk > + gcc-initial/ > + gcc-initial.mk > + gcc/ > + gcc.mk I have to admit this looks good to me. So, I'll be working with that new goal in mind. Thanks! :-) Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'