[Buildroot] [PATCH] core/legal-info: allow ignoring packages from the legal-info
Yann E. MORIN
yann.morin.1998 at free.fr
Sat Oct 15 20:13:28 UTC 2016
Arnout, All,
On 2016-10-15 20:06 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 15-10-16 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > On 2016-10-15 19:22 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> >> On 15-10-16 17:40, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
[--SNIP--]
> >>> 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.
Eh! ;-)
> >> 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.
I would argue that, if a packager elected to have its package completely
ignored by the legal-info infra, we should just abide by this wish and
just completely ignore it. Altogether.
Let's see what others think... ;-)
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