Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate recipe to allow bootstrapping

Khem Raj
2021-03-25T16:02:14Z

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:45 AM Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:27 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:22 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > Sent: den 25 mars 2021 10:34
> > > > To: Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco)
> > > > <oobitots@cisco.com>; Luca Bocassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com>;
> > > > openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > Cc: bluelightning@bluelightning.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > > <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate
> > > > recipe to allow bootstrapping
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 09:17 +0000, Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots -
> > > > GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) wrote:
> > > > > Could you look into this warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > WARNING: util-linux-2.36.2-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: util-linux-dev
> > > > rdepends on util-linux-libuuid-dev, but it isn't a build dependency?
> > > > [build-deps]
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/61/builds/3226
> > > >
> > > > That failure was my fault when testing some fixes.
> > > >
> > > > I've sent out a patch which renames util-linux-uuid to util-linux-libuuid
> > > > and sorts out the license issue Peter reported.
> > >
> > > I don't mind the recipe being renamed and cleaned up, but I would prefer
> > > to see my entire patch for the license parts being either integrated before
> > > this or squashed into it, whichever you prefer. It does not make sense to
> > > use the same LIC_FILES_CHKSUM for util-linux-libuuid as for util-linux,
> > > and setting the other LICENSE variables in util-linux.inc no longer makes
> > > sense as they are only relevant for util-linux.
> >
> > I'm torn on that. Code with the other licenses is present, just not used
> > in the final output and I personally suspect that having one LIC_FILES_CHKSUM
> > is going to be easier to maintain in the future rather than two separate ones.
>
> FWIW, in Debian the license definitions always cover the _sources_, not
> the built binaries. IOW: even if you don't build and distribute a
> subtool, the license metadata must cover it. I'd think this would be
> even more important for Yocto since you exclusively distribute sources,
> not binaries.

ideally, it would be good to have both expressed distinctly since we also have
tooling for end users to create manifests for whats strictly on target
images. we perhaps
need source license which is perhaps at recipe level and then target
license which is at package level.

>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Luca Boccassi
>