From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:13:28 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info In-Reply-To: <520a1ab5-06bb-7a22-1ace-7b4d1febc2c1@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> <20161015173729.GI3668@free.fr> <520a1ab5-06bb-7a22-1ace-7b4d1febc2c1@mind.be> Message-ID: <20161015201327.GA3982@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 20:06 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 15-10-16 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > On 2016-10-15 19:22 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > >> On 15-10-16 17:40, Luca Ceresoli wrote: [--SNIP--] > >>> 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... > Neither am I. Eh! ;-) > >> 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? > First of all, both _GEN_LEGAL_INFO and _LEGAL_INFO_HOOKS are package-specific > so the package knows what it's doing. > > The reason to run hooks is that you may still want to do *something* in the > legal info for excluded packages. I can't give a concrete example, but I'm > thinking along the lines of e.g. doing some check and erroring out, or still > adding some custom information to legal info. You know, what the hooks are meant > for in the first place :-) The point is, this option disables the normal > legal-info, but that doesn't mean that there would be no legal-info at all. I would argue that, if a packager elected to have its package completely ignored by the legal-info infra, we should just abide by this wish and just completely ignore it. Altogether. Let's see what others think... ;-) 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. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'