[Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/2] getent: new package

Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Mon Aug 18 17:18:38 UTC 2014

Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> schreef:
>Dear Thomas De Schampheleire,
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:07:08 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> > Which license text file should be used? In neither of the uclibc/musl
>> > or glibc cases we have access to the license text. I can include a
>> > COPYING file in package/getent/, but that's going to be 100x times
>> > larger than the getent script :)
>> Hmm, not sure what to do here.
>> If we don't specify anything, the developer wanting to distribute an
>> image will have to manually add a LGPL2.1 license text.
>> Is there a big problem that the license text would be so much bigger
>> than the script itself? If we'd have multiple packages with source
>> included in buildroot, we could move the licenses to one directory to
>> avoid duplication.
>> But I have no strong opinion here...
>Note that we have a lot of packages that have a value for
><pkg>_LICENSE, and no value defined for <pkg>_LICENSE_FILES.
>According to http://autobuild.buildroot.org/stats/, we have 76 packages
>without <pkg>_LICENSE, and 152 without <pkg>_LICENSE_FILES. Therefore, I
>think that's a more global problem, not limited to just this package.
>At least, I don't think it should be a blocking issue, especially
>considering the fact that this set of patches is meant to fix a bug
>before the release.

No, agreed, let's proceed with this version of the patch...

Best regards,

More information about the buildroot mailing list