[Buildroot] [PATCH 05/13 v7] core/legal-info: add package version to license directory

Yann E. MORIN yann.morin.1998 at free.fr
Sun May 15 17:50:22 UTC 2016


Arnout, All,

On 2016-05-14 23:22 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 05/13/16 22:11, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> >Thomas, All,
> >
> >On 2016-05-11 23:43 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> >>On Sat, 7 May 2016 22:01:28 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> >>
> >>>>+	@$$(call legal-warning-pkg,$$($(2)_RAW_BASE_NAME),cannot save license ($(2)_LICENSE_FILES not defined))
> >>>
> >>>  I think this should stay $(2)_RAWNAME, or either it should change as well for
> >>>the legal-warning-source below.
> >>>
> >>>  Other than that:
> >>>Reviewed-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout at mind.be>
> >>
> >>I agree with Arnout here (we should keep using $(2)_RAWNAME for the
> >>warning). Yann, what do you think?
> >
> >1. With this patch (and the following one), legal-info now gets saved in
> >   sub-directories named after the paclage name and version, i.e.:
> >
> >    legal-info/licenses/pkg-version/
> >    legal-info/sources/pkg-version/
> >
> >2. With this patch, we also store the package name and version in the
> >   manifest.
> >
> >3. The warnings are stored in the legal-info report.
> >
> >So, I think it is better that the info about packages is the same
> >everywhere: sources/ and licenses/ sub-dirs, entries in the manifest and
> >warnings alike.
> 
>  I completely agree with this reasoning. Note that I wrote:
> 
> >>>   [...] or either it should change as well for
> >>> the legal-warning-source below.

OK, but now that I look at it, and after Thomas pointed it on IRC, we can't
really add the version for legal-warning-nosource (legal-warning-source
does not exist, so I gues you meant legal-warning-nosource), because for
the two occurences of those two, we don't have a version to beging with:

  - one if about 'local' pacakges for which we do not have a version
    string at all;

  - the second if for overriden packages, for which we do not have a
    version string either (well, the one in our .mk is probably wrong,
    so we should not use it).

So, do you still want to use the _RAW_BASE_NAME for those, even though
it does not make sense (both would be rendered into 'foo-custom')?

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'


More information about the buildroot mailing list