From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:26:38 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 04/21 RFC] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info In-Reply-To: <20151117211451.7ad6f80f@free-electrons.com> References: <5d993adab02ed57f67d14652247fbd31aaae87bc.1447713615.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20151117122226.0cbd8042@free-electrons.com> <564B655C.5060105@lucaceresoli.net> <20151117192802.GA3703@free.fr> <20151117211451.7ad6f80f@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20151117212638.GE3703@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 21:14 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:28:02 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Well, I don't really care whether we call it IGNORE or NOTHING or > > whatever makes more sense. I'm also fine with deprecating YES and NO > > to replace them with more meaningful values. > > > > What I care about is having the ability to mark a package for the > > following conditions: > > > > - redistribute "source" archive, list in the manifest and save > > licensing files, > > > > - list in the manifest and save licensing files, > > > > - completely omit the package from legal-info. > > Right, understood. > > > As Luca explained, there are packages for which we should not > > redistribute the "source" archive, but which we must list in the > > manifest. Luca talked about imx-vpu, I was thinking about > > nvidia-driver. > > Seen the examples, it is more convincing now. > > > The new possibility that I would want is to completely ignore the > > package from the legal-info output, as there might be legal reasons that > > the mere existence of that package should not be disclosed. > > So, I understand the need. Now, I am wondering whether we should have > one single variable with "special" values as Luca/you suggest, or two > clearly separated boolean variables that control each aspects > (distribute the source, include in legal-info). Example: > > _GENERATE_LEGAL_INFO = YES/NO > _REDISTRIBUTE_SOURCE = YES/NO > > Of course, if _GENERATE_LEGAL_INFO = NO, _REDISTRIBUTE_SOURCE > is ignored. > > This is just a proposal, I'm totally open to better names for the > variables. I would prefer we keep a single variable. Especially since we can easily keep backward compatibility. 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'