On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 19:56 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > There doesn't seem to be much consistency in the way LICENSE is > handled for recipes which don't need to define anything in SRC_URI. > > - Packagegroup recipes have a default LICENSE in > packagegroup.bbclass > and generally don't define their own value, for reasons explained in: > > http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=c04ae17f43 > 9ffd5fd70d8564430a94582e2cf688 > > - Image recipes have a default LICENSE in image.bbclass but > generally > always explicitly define the value again. A precedent for doing that > seems to have been set by: > > http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded- > core/commit/?id=fb617bed6ebbb17ca9a14ea5985302b03311ccb7
That is from 2010 and the world looked very different so I'm not sure I'd read much into it. > - SDK recipes (anything inheriting populate_sdk) don't have a > default > LICENSE and must explicitly define one in each recipe. > > Given that LICENSE is meant to apply to the sources associated with a > recipe, not the recipe itself, shouldn't all these cases be following > the approach currently taken by packagegroup recipes (ie a default > set > by the appropriate class and no LICENSE in the recipe)? Or is there a > fundamental difference between these cases which justifies the three > different approaches? I think the approach should be standardised and come from the class. The recipe can always override. I suspect its simply not happened as nobody has had time or there have been other higher priorities. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
