On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Otavio Salvador > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> From: Chunrong Guo <[email protected]> >>> >>> I think your patch highlighted a problem. >>> >>> I agree with having a custom-licenses directory. But when this patch >>> is merged, we are going to have 2 different EULAs in different places. >>> >>> And one is called Freescale-EULA >>> >>> and the other EULA >>> >>> So, I think it would be better to have EULA copied into >>> custom-licenses, and a better name should be used for both EULA files. >>> >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> Fully agree. We need to check: >> >> * if both are the same or not >> * put in place the system to ask for whitelist each >> * move to LICENSE_WHITELIST mechanishm >> * rework unpack binary to check for each EULA when appropriate > > * double check which one to display at first source setup-environment time
We will likely have two EULA being displayed and confirmed. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
