On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 10:39 AM CEST, 전민지 via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > Hello, > > While investigating SPDX 3.0 annotation generation on the scarthgap > branch, I noticed a difference between scarthgap and master in how > SPDX_CUSTOM_ANNOTATION_VARS is handled in spdx30_tasks.py. > > In scarthgap (meta/lib/oe/spdx30_tasks.py, around line 520): > > new_annotation( > d, > build_objset, > build, > "%s=%s" % (var, d.getVar(var)), > oe.spdx30.AnnotationType.other, > ) > > In master (meta/lib/oe/spdx30_tasks.py, around line 549): > > objset.new_annotation( > build, > "%s=%s" % (var, d.getVar(var)), > oe.spdx30.AnnotationType.other, > ) > > When SPDX_CUSTOM_ANNOTATION_VARS is set on scarthgap, do_create_spdx > fails with: > > Exception: NameError: name 'new_annotation' is not defined > > The failure occurs at meta/lib/oe/spdx30_tasks.py:520 while processing > SPDX_CUSTOM_ANNOTATION_VARS. > > I could not determine whether this difference is intentional or whether the > corresponding fix was missed when changes were backported to scarthgap. > > Would it be appropriate to backport the master implementation to scarthgap? > > Thanks, > Minji Jeon
Hello, We decided to backport the SPDX3 generation feature from master to scarthgap, so any fix done on master would be also acceptable on scarthgap. So, yes, it would be appropriate (albeit with some care as to not be too intrusive...) Thanks! -- Yoann Congal Smile ECS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#245569): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/245569 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/121179868/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
