[Buildroot] [PATCH 08/51] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info

[Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Luca, Thomas, Peter,

On 2015-12-03 18:12 +0100, Luca Ceresoli spake thusly:
> Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> >>>>>>"Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:
> >  > Can you give your opinion on the semantic/usage of the
> >  > <pkg>_REDISTRIBUTE variable.
> >
> >  > I am personally not a big fan of the non-boolean behavior introduced by
> >  > this patch for this variable. With this patch, <pkg>_REDISTRIBUTE
> >  > switches from a normal YES/NO boolean variable to a weird tristate
> >  > variable YES/IGNORE/NO.
> >
> >  > I have already stated my opinion that there should be two boolean
> >  > variables instead:
> >
> >  >  * One which allows the package to indicate if the package should be
> >  >    mentioned in the legal-info or not.
> >
> >  >  * One which allows the package to indicate if the package "source"
> >  >    should be saved to the legal-info or not. Of course, this variable
> >  >    is ignored if the first one is set to "NO".
> >
> >  > This is IMO a lot clearer than a single variable with the YES/IGNORE/NO
> >  > values.
> >
> >  > Peter ?
> >
> >I thought I had already replied to this, but perhaps that was only on
> >IRC? In general, I feel that the legal-info is purely an aid that can
> >serve as input to whatever license compliancy effort the user has to do
> >- E.G. include the various license texts in the user manual, provide
> >source offer and so on, so if the data contains a bit of extra
> >information that isn't such a big deal.
> 
> Agreed, yet it's good to automate whatever we can _and_ is simple to
> implement. Since Yann's is only an 8-lines patch (+docs), I like it.
> 
> >
> >But ok, if we want to do it I would atleast want it to be as simple and
> >easy to use as possible. I agree with Thomas that splitting the two
> >things we want to do into two seperate variables is probably the easiest
> >to understand.
> 
> I proposed one three-valued variable, but I'm fine with the two boolean
> idea as well. Thus, Yann, can you re-cook it accordingly?

Yes, I will.

Thanks all for the input! :-)

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.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'