From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:37:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info In-Reply-To: <18b75237-c88f-586e-347c-d1c1a1d15cd5@mind.be> References: <1476538102-8779-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <878ttpbq72.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20161015153246.GG3668@free.fr> <18b75237-c88f-586e-347c-d1c1a1d15cd5@mind.be> Message-ID: <20161015173729.GI3668@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Arnout, All, On 2016-10-15 19:22 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 15-10-16 17:40, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > On 15/10/2016 17:32, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > >> Peter, All, > >> > >> On 2016-10-15 17:13 +0200, Peter Korsgaard spake thusly: > >>>>>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN writes: > >>> > >>> > 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 proprietary packages, it might not even be legal to even > >>> > mention them, being under NDA or some other such restrictive > >>> > conditions. > >>> > >>> > Introduce the new FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO variable that a package can set > >>> > to 'NO' (default to 'YES') 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, > >>> > patches and license files are not saved into legal-info/ . > >>> > >>> Couldn't / shouldn't the 2nd part already be handled by > >>> _REDISTRIBUTE = NO and/or _LICENSE = PROPRIETARY? > >> > >> No, because for a proprietary license, you may still have to at least > >> list it in the manifest. > >> > >> For example, the nvidia-driver package has a proprietary license, is not > >> redistributable, but we must still list it in the manifest. > >> > >> I'll update the commit log accordingly. Thanks! ;-) > > > > I suggest listing the three possible cases: > > > > * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = NO: save nothing > > * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = YES, FOO_REDISTRIBUTE = NO: list only > > * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = YES, FOO_REDISTRIBUTE = NO: list + save source > > I hate that we have all these combinations. That was actually my first thought > when I saw this patch: oh no, yet another variation point. But I don't see a way > to simplify it. So OK. The alternative would be: - get rid of LIBFOO_REDISTRIBUTE - add LIBFOO_LEGAL_INFO = {IGNORE,LIST,FULL} (or whatever name/values). Thomas, Peter and Luca were not very happy with such a tristate, and in retrospect, neither am I... > One remark though: I think the pre- and post-hooks should still run even if > _GEN_LEGAL_INFO = NO. Not so sure... Such hooks are made to save extra stuff into legal-info, or to prepare the package for legal-info. So, if the package is excluded for legal-info, there is no reason to run those hooks to start with, is there? 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'