On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 08:15 -0700, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 16:24 -0700, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote: > >> Adding a bit more functionality here: > >> 1. Adding some more SPDX Maps to take care of + licenses > >> 2. Strip out -native and -cross package license wrangling. > >> If it doesn't go on the image, we shouldn't wrangle it. > >> 3. Split out the license destination directory to a > >> IMAGE_NAME time stamped dir in > >> /tmp/deploy/licenses/${IMAGE_NAME}/<stamp> > >> > >> I've removed the handler from my previous Pull as license > >> manifest needs more discussion and I don't want these > >> bug fixes to be held up by an added feature. > > > > I obviously don't understand this code :/ > > > > What happens when I run "bitbake core-image-minimal core-image-sato", > > i.e. when I build two images in one build? > > > > I suspect this current approach is flawed and we actually need to > > postprocess the installed package list after do_rootfs completes at > > image generation time to build the *real* list based on the installed > > packages? > > > > Yes. I've found that this approach is definitely flawed. It works > great for a single image build. Outside of that it acts funny, like > you mentioned and can return incorrect results. I'm planning on > revisting this soon. > > I'm suspecting that your suggested approach is the way it'll have to > be. Looking at what is generated by various runs and I see issues. > > > This code is obviously still needed as it would provide the basis so the > > code can get the licenses it needs to pull together... > > Yes, agreed.
So with this in mind, where does that put this pull request? :) Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
