[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] legal-info: extract even no-redistribute packages

[Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>]

Hi Yann,

Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
>
> Currently, if a package is marked _REDISTRIBUTE = NO, then legal-info
> will not try to extract it first.
>
> If that package also declares some _LICENSE_FILES, legal-info fails
> if it is the only action we're trying to run:
>
>      $ cat defconfig
>      BR2_INIT_NONE=y
>      BR2_PACKAGE_LIBFSLCODEC=y
>      $ make BR2_DEFCONFIG=$(pwd)/defconfig defconfig
>      $ make libfslcodec-legal-info
>      /bin/sh: /home/ymorin/dev/buildroot/O/legal-info/licenses.txt: No such file or directory
>      make[1]: *** [libfslcodec-legal-info] Error 1
>
> Fix this by always having legal-info extract the archives if one or
> more _LICENSE_FILES are specified.
>
> We do this for all types of packages: overriden, local or 'normal'
> remote packages. Even though we do not save the sources for the
> overriden or local packages, we need to save their licensing info,
> so we need to extract them.
>
> This implies that we now need to explicitly add PKG-source as a dependency
> of legal-info for pacakges we want to save (ie. redistributable, non-local
> and non-overriden packages).
>
> Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
> Cc: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
> Cc: Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com>
> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
> Cc: Fabio Porcedda <fabio.porcedda@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> Changes v3 -> v4:
>    - legal-info needs to depend on PKG-source when it needs to save a
>      package's tarball
>
> Changes v2 -> v3:
>    - don't include source URL of no-redistribute, or overriden, or local
>      packages in the manifest
>
> Changes v1 -> v2:
>    - this is not fixing the autobuilders failure it was written to fix
>      so remove the references to such build failures  (Thomas P)
>    - also extract overriden and local packages  (Fabio)
> ---
>   package/pkg-generic.mk | 11 +++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/package/pkg-generic.mk b/package/pkg-generic.mk
> index 339c3eb..3d8f0da 100644
> --- a/package/pkg-generic.mk
> +++ b/package/pkg-generic.mk
> @@ -555,11 +555,18 @@ $(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES = $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)
>   endif
>   $(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES ?= not saved
>
> +# If the package declares _LICENSE_FILES, we need to extract it,
> +# for overriden, local or normal remote packages alike, whether
> +# we want to redistribute it or not.
> +ifneq ($$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES),)
> +$(1)-legal-info: $(1)-extract
> +endif
> +
>   ifeq ($$($(2)_REDISTRIBUTE),YES)
>   ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),local)
>   ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),override)
> -# Packages that have a tarball need it downloaded and extracted beforehand
> -$(1)-legal-info: $(1)-extract $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR_$(call UPPERCASE,$(4)))
> +# We need to download the package sources if we are to save it

Minor nit: package sources <-> save them   (plural)
        or: package archive <-> save it     (singular)

This is so smaller than the overall improvement in the patch, and it's
only in a comment which is understandable anyway, so I would tag this
patch as Reviewed-by me. But the recently established policy is that
"If you reviewed a patch and have comments on it, you should simply
reply to the patch stating these comments, without providing a
Reviewed-by or Acked-by tag.".

So I cannot tag here, sorry, but fix this and I'll do so.

BTW, what if I have comments but would commit as is and improve in a
successive patch? Should I add Acked/Review-by? This is the case here,
actually.

-- 
Luca