From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:17:47 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 08/10] libimxvpuapi: add new package In-Reply-To: References: <1454154357-31625-1-git-send-email-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <1454154357-31625-9-git-send-email-gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com> <20160201214218.3eb39852@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160201221747.761bb1c0@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 22:07:35 +0100, Gary Bisson wrote: > >> diff --git a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in > >> index 09c2b40..d3e5e30 100644 > >> --- a/package/Config.in > >> +++ b/package/Config.in > >> @@ -1033,6 +1033,7 @@ menu "Multimedia" > >> source "package/libfslparser/Config.in" > >> source "package/libfslvpuwrap/Config.in" > >> source "package/libhdhomerun/Config.in" > >> + source "package/libimxvpuapi/Config.in" > > > > Why isn't it part of the package/freescale/ directory ? Because it > > isn't sourced from the same site ? > > No actually my thought process was that this package is the equivalent > of libfslvpuwrap which, for some reason, isn't part of the > freescale-imx folder. Not sure why, I'm sure there's an historical > reason behind it. The main reason to have a sub-folder is to be able to share variables, such as _VERSION and _SITE. So if they are not shared with your package, there's indeed little reason to have it under package/freescale-imx/. Now, the question is where it should appear in the menuconfig. I don't have a strong opinion here, but if libfslvpuwrap is in Multimedia, then I think your choice is OK. And indeed, libfslvpuwrap also selects BR2_PACKAGE_FREESCALE_IMX and BR2_PACKAGE_IMX_VPU, so let's do the same for your package. > >> +LIBIMXVPUAPI_VERSION = 0.10.1 > >> +LIBIMXVPUAPI_SITE = $(call github,Freescale,libimxvpuapi,$(LIBIMXVPUAPI_VERSION)) > >> +LIBIMXVPUAPI_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 > > > > License seems to be LGPLv2.1+. > > The LICENSE file says LGPLv2.1 but indeed the source code headers > state the LGPLv2.1+. Who wins then? > https://github.com/Freescale/libimxvpuapi/blob/master/imxvpuapi/imxvpuapi_jpeg.c#L7 > https://github.com/Freescale/libimxvpuapi/blob/master/LICENSE It's not a question of who wins. All software under GPLvX+ or LGPLvX+ will have the license text of GPLvX or LGPLvX in its COPYING/LICENSE file. It doesn't change the fact that the source is distributed under GPLvX+ / LGPLvX+, which means that the recipient can chose either GPLvX or any later version of the GPL (ditto LGPLvX). > > Also, you forgot to include a hash file. Could you fix those issues and > > send an updated version? > > I might have missed an update, are we providing hash even for Github > projects now? As explained on IRC, Github changed the way they generate tarballs, and they now seem to generate stable tarballs (i.e tarballs that have the exact same contents for a given tag/commit of a given project). Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com