Re: Gstreamer packaging

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:08 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:53 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Obviously you can make the recipe depend on good+bad+ugly but its less
> > than ideal for build time reasons (esp. when considering dependencies)
> > but also the reason that good/bad/ugly exist in the first place which is
> > licensing. If the recipe always has to depend on good+bad+ugly, it
> > becomes rather tricky to disable ugly and work out whether the resulting
> > configuration can build. Companies interested in license compliance do
> > have a strong need to be able to do this.
> 
> Incidentally, there isn't actually (as far as I can tell) anything in
> the current -ugly recipe which would indicate to an ENTERPRISE_DISTRO
> that this recipe is potentially problematic.  Its LICENSE field just
> reads "GPLv2+ & LGPLv2.1+ & LGPLv2+", which might or might not be
> accurate, and it doesn't appear to have the self-skipping behaviour
> which the corresponding recipe in oe.dev does.

See conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc:

# This is a list of packages that require a commercial license to ship
# product. If shipped as part of an image these packages may have 
# implications so they are disabled by default
COMMERCIAL_LICENSE ?= "lame gst-fluendo-mp3 libmad mpeg2dec ffmpeg qmmp"
COMMERCIAL_AUDIO_PLUGINS ?= ""
# COMMERCIAL_AUDIO_PLUGINS ?= "gst-plugins-ugly-mad gst-plugins-ugly-mpegaudioparse"
COMMERCIAL_VIDEO_PLUGINS ?= ""
# COMMERCIAL_VIDEO_PLUGINS ?= "gst-plugins-ugly-mpeg2dec gst-plugins-ugly-mpegstream gst-plugins-bad-mpegvideoparse"
COMMERCIAL_QT ?= ""
# COMMERCIAL_QT ?= "qmmp"

I agree we should like have this kind of information indicated at the
recipe level though.

Cheers,

Richard