From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:46:27 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Patchwork cleanup #7: submitter notification (feedback deadline: April 12) In-Reply-To: References: <20140331171204.GB5004@free.fr> <533EDC3F.9060101@mind.be> Message-ID: <5360FEB3.8000803@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 29/04/14 21:52, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Arnout, Yann, Luca, > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> On 31/03/14 19:12, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >>> On 2014-03-31 10:58 +0200, Eric Jarrige spake thusly: >>>> Hi Thomas, >>>> >>>>>> [v2,1/1] u-boot: allow to pass a custom configuration file >>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/276286/ >>>>>> Eric Jarrige >>>>>> Yann Morin gave the feedback that this patch allows to overwrite >>>>>> u-boot sources, rendering the declared license possible invalid. >>>> >>>> AFAIK this feature cannot overwrite the U-Boot license files and >>>> according to the U-Boot licenses/README - "You can redistribute >>>> U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU >>>> General Public License as published by the Free Software >>>> Foundation." >>>> So, it should not be an issue as long as the new config file respects >>>> the terms of the version 2 of the GNU GPL license. >>> >>> Hmm. There was maybe a bit of misunderstanding in what I said. Lemme >>> quote it here again: >>> >>> --- >>> This is likely to overwrite a uboot source file >>> with a local file, so we won't be able to generate conpliant >>> legal-info when a custom comnfig file is used. >>> --- >>> >>> What I meant was, when running 'make legal-info', we will end up copying >>> the tarball of the sources, and we will miss this file (since Buildroot >>> is not recreating the tarballs from the build dir, but just copies what >>> was downloaded.) >>> >>> So, this indeed can not overwrite the license file, but the sources in >>> legal-info will not be the exact sources used to build U-Boot, so the >>> legal-info will not create a compliant distribution. >> >> Note that this is the same for the kernel (although a bit more vague). >> One could easily argue that the .config file is part of the >> infrastructure needed to build the kernel (if you've ever tried to >> reverse engineer a kernel config you will know what I mean). With U-Boot >> it's more obvious because the config file is a header file, but the >> semantics are really the same. >> >> That said, this shouldn't be a reason to do the wrong thing in U-Boot. >> >>> >>> That's why I oppposed the change as-is. >>> >>>>>> Eric: are you still interested in pursuing this patch? If so, I think >>>>>> some further discussion on it should be ignited. >>>> >>>> I submitted this patch because I think it is generic enough to support >>>> custom U-Boot configuration file for any board without using a patch >>>> but I can understand I am the only one customizing bootloader for >>>> my boards. >>>> So feel free to reject this patch if there is no interest to manage >>>> U-Boot configuration files within BuildRoot. >>> >>> I did not say we did not want to be able to provide a custom config >>> file. I just said we need to be careful on the impact. >>> >>> However, I see that it is possible to declare post-legal-info hooks in >>> packages. >>> >>> So you could complement your patch with something like: >>> >>> UBOOT_CUSTOM_CONFIG = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE)) >>> ifneq ($(UBOOT_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE),) >>> define UBOOT_COPY_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE >>> $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D $(UBOOT_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE) \ >>> $(SOMEWHERE) >>> endef >>> UBOOT_POST_LEGAL_INFO_HOOKS += UBOOT_COPY_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE >>> endif >>> >>> I'll leave it to you as an exercise to find what $(SOMEWHERE) should be. >>> ;-) >> >> Perhaps we should add legal-info infrastructure to support this kind of >> thing. Something like >> >> PKG_LICENSE_EXTRA_SOURCE = list of files relative to BR dir >> >> >> >> By the way, since this config.h copying is only useful for changing the >> configuration of existing boards, I think this should be explicitly >> mentioned in the help text of the option. >> >> BTW, note that this patch has become more useful since the deprecation >> of BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_IPADDR and friends. >> >> > > What should we do with this issue now? For me: * the legal-info argument is not a showstopper because it's the same for many other buildroot features; * the approach is not great, because it _looks_ like it makes it possible to create a new board, which is not true; * the patch is still very useful, and I like it much more than sedding the config file. So for me, this is an A-class. However, I still have some comments on the patch (see that thread). Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F