From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RjOiA-0005tr-DI for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:20:59 +0100 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2012 21:13:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="104473954" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.210]) ([10.255.13.210]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2012 21:13:32 -0800 From: Tom Zanussi To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <4F07D3CA.4090807@linux.intel.com> References: <1d28eae1f497931d4a0a232a3390a9737a508aec.1325903501.git.tom.zanussi@intel.com> <4F07D3CA.4090807@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:13:07 -0600 Message-ID: <1325913187.15053.83.camel@elmorro> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] base.bbclass: add support for LICENSE_FLAGS X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 05:20:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 21:10 -0800, Saul Wold wrote: > On 01/06/2012 06:34 PM, tom.zanussi@intel.com wrote: > > From: Tom Zanussi > > > > LICENSE_FLAGS are a per-recipe replacement for the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE > > mechanism. > > > > In the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE mechanism, any package name mentioned in the > > global COMMERCIAL_LICENSE list is 'blacklisted' from being included in > > an image. To allow the blacklisted package into the image, the > > corresponding packages need to be removed from the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE > > list. This mechanism relies on a global list defined in > > default-distrovars.inc. > > > > The LICENSE_FLAGS mechanism essentially implements the same thing but > > turns the global blacklist into a per-recipe whitelist. Any recipe > > can optionally define one or more 'license flags'; if defined, each of > > the license flags defined for a recipe must have matching entries in a > > global LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST variable. Typically a recipe will have > > a single license flag specific to itself, which allows it to be > > individually toggled on and off. For example, a package named 'foo' > > might define a single license flag, 'commercial_foo': > > > > LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_foo" > > > > This says that in order for the foo package to be included in the > > image, the string 'commercial_foo' must appear in the > > LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST variable: > > > > LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST = "commercial_foo" > > > > Because the typical case is indeed to create LICENSE_FLAGS containing > > the package name, the LICENSE_FLAGS could just as well have been > > specified as: > > > > LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_${PN} > > > > which would pick up the package name automatically. > > > > The mechanism has the word 'flags' in the name because although the > > typical case is to specify a single string to match as above, the user > > can add additional strings that might be thought of additional > > 'attributes' of a license that also need to be matched. This allows > > for the creation and specification of license categories that could be > > used to flexibly match sets of packages that match certain attributes > > without forcing them to all be specified individually. For example, a > > particular set of recipes that are typically used together might all > > contain a 'commercial_video' flag. Additionally, some of them might > > specify an additional 'binary' flag meaning that it's not possible to > > get the source for those packages. Specifying both 'commercial_video > > and binary' in the LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST would allow them all to be > > pulled in, but if 'binary' was missing, it would only allow those > > packages that had source to be allowed in to the image. > > > > The current behavior of COMMERCIAL_LICENSE is replicated as mentioned > > above by having the current set of COMMERCIAL_LICENSE flags implement > > their using LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_${PN}. > > > > That being the case, the current COMMERCIAL_LICENSE can equivalently > > be specified in the new scheme by putting the below in local.conf: > > > > # 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. To enable them, > > # un-comment the below as appropriate. > > #LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST = "commercial_gst-fluendo-mp3 \ > > # commercial_gst-openmax \ > > # commercial_gst-plugins-ugly \ > > # commercial_lame \ > > # commercial_libmad \ > > # commercial_libomxil \ > > # commercial_mpeg2dec \ > > # commercial_qmmp" > > > Would it not make sense to add this to local.conf.sample.extended in > meta-yocto? > Yes, I was going to do that, but didn't want to bother if it wasn't going anywhere. I'll send a patch for it... Tom > This won't hold up this patch set. > > Sau! > > > > The above allows all of the current COMMERCIAL_LICENSE packages in - > > to disallow a particular package from appearing in the image, simply > > remove it from the whitelist. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi > > --- > > meta/classes/base.bbclass | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass > > index e65a722..4aeba1b 100644 > > --- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass > > +++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass > > @@ -349,6 +349,25 @@ python () { > > if license == "INVALID": > > bb.fatal('This recipe does not have the LICENSE field set (%s)' % pn) > > > > + def skip_package(pn, flag): > > + bb.debug(1, "Skipping %s because it has a restricted license (%s) not" > > + " whitelisted in LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST" % (pn, flag)) > > + raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("because it may require a special license" > > + " to ship in a product (listed in LICENSE_FLAGS)") > > + > > + def all_license_flags_match(flags, whitelist): > > + for flag in flags.split(): > > + if not flag in whitelist.split(): > > + return False > > + return True > > + > > + license_flags = d.getVar('LICENSE_FLAGS', True) > > + if license_flags: > > + license_flags_whitelist = d.getVar('LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST', True) > > + if not license_flags_whitelist or not all_license_flags_match( > > + license_flags, license_flags_whitelist): > > + skip_package(pn, license_flags) > > + > > commercial_license = " %s " % d.getVar('COMMERCIAL_LICENSE', 1) > > import re > > pnr = "[ \t]%s[ \t]" % pn.replace('+', "\+") > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core