[Buildroot] [PATCH 08/51] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info

[Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>]

Yann, Thomas, Peter,

Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> writes:
>
>   > Peter,
>   > Can you give your opinion on the semantic/usage of the
>   > <pkg>_REDISTRIBUTE variable.
>
>   > I am personally not a big fan of the non-boolean behavior introduced by
>   > this patch for this variable. With this patch, <pkg>_REDISTRIBUTE
>   > switches from a normal YES/NO boolean variable to a weird tristate
>   > variable YES/IGNORE/NO.
>
>   > I have already stated my opinion that there should be two boolean
>   > variables instead:
>
>   >  * One which allows the package to indicate if the package should be
>   >    mentioned in the legal-info or not.
>
>   >  * One which allows the package to indicate if the package "source"
>   >    should be saved to the legal-info or not. Of course, this variable
>   >    is ignored if the first one is set to "NO".
>
>   > This is IMO a lot clearer than a single variable with the YES/IGNORE/NO
>   > values.
>
>   > Peter ?
>
> I thought I had already replied to this, but perhaps that was only on
> IRC? In general, I feel that the legal-info is purely an aid that can
> serve as input to whatever license compliancy effort the user has to do
> - E.G. include the various license texts in the user manual, provide
> source offer and so on, so if the data contains a bit of extra
> information that isn't such a big deal.

Agreed, yet it's good to automate whatever we can _and_ is simple to
implement. Since Yann's is only an 8-lines patch (+docs), I like it.

>
> But ok, if we want to do it I would atleast want it to be as simple and
> easy to use as possible. I agree with Thomas that splitting the two
> things we want to do into two seperate variables is probably the easiest
> to understand.

I proposed one three-valued variable, but I'm fine with the two boolean
idea as well. Thus, Yann, can you re-cook it accordingly?

-- 
Luca