Hi Douglas,

Thanks for bringing it to the list.

For the readership, for avoidance of doubt: This particular license
checker script is not the "whole story" around license related
assertions and policy solutions for BuildStream projects, which has
been under discussion here:

  
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re806060db181d176089108325d9c8564546f5e686eb96198ea9be458%40%3Cdev.buildstream.apache.org%3E

As Douglas points out, this script in particular is basically a handy
script which you can use for any BuildStream project to harvest license
scanning results and view reports of such.

On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:51 +0100, Douglas Winship wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> 
> For a couple of weeks, we've been working on a Buildstream license 
> checker script. We're hoping that it can become a useful tool for the 
> BuildStream community, and we'd like to bring it under the BuildStream 
> umbrella by making it a project in the BuildStream GitLab group.
> 
> The tool is a python script that interacts with a BuildStream project by 
> invoking BuildStream commands like 'bst show' and 'bst workspace open' 
> (using subprocess.call). The script checks out the source code of 
> BuildStream elements into temporary folders, and then uses a separate 
> piece of software called licensecheck to scan the files for license 
> information.
> 
> The final output is a list of licensecheck output files (one for each 
> element), plus human readable and machine readable summary files (html 
> and json, respectively). We're currently testing the tool by running it 
> in CI on a Freedesktop SDK branch. Sample outputs can be seen in the CI 
> job artifacts.
> 
> We'd appreciate feedback on the script itself, and on the idea of making 
> it part of the BuildStream group.

Normally we would add standalone python scripts like this to the
contrib/ directory, like `bst-here` and others:

    https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/tree/master/contrib

However, I think that given the structure of your gitlab repo, it makes
more sense to add this as a separate repo in the BuildStream group.

Any other thoughts on this ?

Cheers,
    -Tristan


Reply via email to