Re: [PATCH] classes/license: copy licenses even if there are no checksummed files

[Beth 'pidge' Flanagan <pidge@toganlabs.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]

On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 20:22 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> 
> On 2 November 2016 at 18:37, Beth 'pidge' Flanagan 
> om> wrote:
> > It's been a bit since I've looked at license.bbclass, but I guess
> > my
> > question here is this seems to take out all notification that a
> > recipe
> > doesn't have a LIC_FILES_CHKSUM, correct?
> > 
> > I'd rather we maybe kept the note in and maybe whitelisted recipes
> > that
> > did interesting things so that didn't appear than just ignored when
> > a
> > recipe was missing it. 
> > 
> > Because if we don't at least bb.note it, I can see people just
> > ignoring
> > it entirely (which would be bad in a lot of ways)
> > 
> No, this check was belt-and-braces (the other check is a
> bb.error()).  Also bb.note() from tasks don't appear in the user-
> visible log by default, you've got to dig into the task log to see
> them which is buried in the work directories.
Ah, correct (I generally see them since I'm piping most of the time).
Ok, in that case then yes, that makes sense.
-b
> > Ross
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1598 bytes --]