From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:36:29 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] legal-info: extract even no-redistribute packages In-Reply-To: <5d5bddd893ac6d6af3bf8caad0e27cfd78b2b960.1395097170.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> References: <5d5bddd893ac6d6af3bf8caad0e27cfd78b2b960.1395097170.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Message-ID: <5328841D.8030100@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Yann, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > From: "Yann E. MORIN" > > 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" > Cc: Luca Ceresoli > Cc: Thomas De Schampheleire > Cc: Thomas Petazzoni > Cc: Fabio Porcedda > > --- > 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