[Buildroot] [PATCH] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 15-10-16 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Arnout, All,
> 
> On 2016-10-15 19:22 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>> On 15-10-16 17:40, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2016 17:32, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>>> Peter, All,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-15 17:13 +0200, Peter Korsgaard spake thusly:
>>>>>>>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>  > It might be necessary to not even mention a package in the output of
>>>>>  > legal-info:
>>>>>
>>>>>  >   - virtual packages have virtually nothing to save in the legal-info
>>>>>  >     output;
>>>>>
>>>>>  >   - for proprietary packages, it might not even be legal to even
>>>>>  >     mention them, being under NDA or some other such restrictive
>>>>>  >     conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > Introduce the new FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO variable that a package can set
>>>>>  > to 'NO' (default to 'YES') to indicate that the package should be
>>>>>  > completely ignored from the legal-info output, in which case the
>>>>>  > package is not mentioned in the maniufest, its source archive,
>>>>>  > patches and license files are not saved into legal-info/ .
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't / shouldn't the 2nd part already be handled by
>>>>> <foo>_REDISTRIBUTE = NO and/or <foo>_LICENSE = PROPRIETARY?
>>>>
>>>> No, because for a proprietary license, you may still have to at least
>>>> list it in the manifest.
>>>>
>>>> For example, the nvidia-driver package has a proprietary license, is not
>>>> redistributable, but we must still list it in the manifest.
>>>>
>>>> I'll update the commit log accordingly. Thanks! ;-)
>>>
>>> I suggest listing the three possible cases:
>>>
>>>  * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = NO: save nothing
>>>  * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = YES, FOO_REDISTRIBUTE = NO: list only
>>>  * FOO_GEN_LEGAL_INFO = YES, FOO_REDISTRIBUTE = NO: list + save source
>>
>>  I hate that we have all these combinations. That was actually my first thought
>> when I saw this patch: oh no, yet another variation point. But I don't see a way
>> to simplify it. So OK.
> 
> The alternative would be:
> 
>   - get rid of LIBFOO_REDISTRIBUTE
>   - add LIBFOO_LEGAL_INFO = {IGNORE,LIST,FULL} (or whatever name/values).
> 
> Thomas, Peter and Luca were not very happy with such a tristate, and in
> retrospect, neither am I...

 Neither am I.

> 
>>  One remark though: I think the pre- and post-hooks should still run even if
>> _GEN_LEGAL_INFO = NO.
> 
> Not so sure... Such hooks are made to save extra stuff into legal-info,
> or to prepare the package for legal-info. So, if the package is excluded
> for legal-info, there is no reason to run those hooks to start with, is
> there?

 First of all, both _GEN_LEGAL_INFO and _LEGAL_INFO_HOOKS are package-specific
so the package knows what it's doing.

 The reason to run hooks is that you may still want to do *something* in the
legal info for excluded packages. I can't give a concrete example, but I'm
thinking along the lines of e.g. doing some check and erroring out, or still
adding some custom information to legal info. You know, what the hooks are meant
for in the first place :-) The point is, this option disables the normal
legal-info, but that doesn't mean that there would be no legal-info at all.


 Regards,
 Arnout

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF