Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments. Sorry I missed the questions when I previously sent it. Resent due to the fact I missed the "Signed off by" in the patch last time around. I agree with you in general about the scope creep, however the license.bbclass code is heavily coupled with this class, as it just greps the runtime dir for all the 'lic_data' it deems appropriate. All that data appears to be emitted here. Might be nice if there was another bbclass which actually just emitted the 'data for licenses' rather than the 'lic_data' being a subset of this package data. I'd be happy to propose that class for review. However, just looking at this function it already seems we've been "heading down a path" here for a while anyway? The content of one extra variable doesn't seem like the tipping point to me. ________________________________ From: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> Sent: 30 May 2019 14:18:36 To: Rob Walton; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] package.bbclass: Emit HOMEPAGE pkgdata. On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 12:44 +0000, Rob Walton wrote: > Emit the contents of HOMEPAGE in the extra pkgdata. This is useful > information to have when creating license manifests. > > Signed-off-by: Rob Walton <[email protected]> > --- > meta/classes/package.bbclass | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass > b/meta/classes/package.bbclass > index 4c0a859..a08aefe 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass > @@ -1458,6 +1458,7 @@ fi > write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'PKGR') > write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'LICENSE') > write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'DESCRIPTION') > + write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'HOMEPAGE') > write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'SUMMARY') > write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'RDEPENDS') > rprov = write_if_exists(sf, pkg, 'RPROVIDES') This isn't the first time this has been requested, back in 14/11/2017 a similar patch had the reply: "This was already proposed once and rejected as its using the interface for something it really wasn't designed for" You've also sent this patch once already and questions were raised then. I have to admit I don't like the license.bbclass code, its starting to look like anything every legal department could ask for, meaning it does no one thing well, just many things badly. I don't like that mess starting to creep into the packaging code which does have a clearly defined purpose and use. Put another way, which variables do we draw the line at? I worry about the path accepting this patch leads us down :( Cheers, Richard IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
