From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 16:29:11 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 14/16 v5] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info In-Reply-To: <96aee606d5d79d7867fc7d60c5343e0b827ff795.1457718289.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> References: <96aee606d5d79d7867fc7d60c5343e0b827ff795.1457718289.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Message-ID: <20160319162911.611fa561@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 Yann E. MORIN, On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:49:27 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > It might be necessary to not even mention a package in the output of > legal-info: > > - virtual packages have virtually nothing to save in the legal-info > output; > > - for Buildroot itself, host-gcc-initial and host-gcc-final are > not real packages, they are just two different steps of the same > package, gcc; > > - for proprietary packages, it might not even be legal to even > mention them, being under NDA or some other such restrictive > conditions. What is the difference with _REDISTRIBUTE = NO ? I know REDISTRIBUTE = NO packages are mentioned in legal-info, but their source code is not copied to the legal-info stuff. But does it make sense to have two separate things? Why do REDISTRIBUTE = NO packages get mentioned in the legal-info if their source code is anyway not saved. > Introduce the new FOO_LEGAL_INGORE variable that a package can set typoe: IGNORE > to 'YES' (default to 'NO') to indicate that the package should be > completely ignored from the legal-info output, in which case the > package is not mentioned in the maniufest, its source archive, typo: manifest > patches and license files are not saved into legal-info/ . > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" > Cc: Luca Ceresoli > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni > Cc: Peter Korsgaard > Reviewed-by: Luca Ceresoli > Tested-by: Luca Ceresoli > > --- > Changes v1 -> v2: > - introduce a new variable, instead of making _REDISTRIBUTE a > tri-state (Thomas, Peter, Luca) Ah, we discussed using REDISTRIBUTE, I remember. But do we need a tri-state ? Do we really have REDISTRIBUTE = NO packages that we want to see mentioned in the legal-info output ? > +* +LIBFOO_LEGAL_IGNORE+ can be set to +YES+ or +NO+ (the default) to indicate To me, the naming of the variable looks like inverted logic. What about: LIBFOO_SAVE_LEGAL_INFO = YES (default) / NO but obviously, _SAVE_LEGAL_INFO is a bit confusing with _REDISTRIBUTE. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com