Hi Randy/Peter/community members, Can you please conclude I should go with which option.
*Thanks & Regards,* Rahul Kumar Software Engineer,Linux Solutions Engineering Group,Montavista Software LLC Email Id: [email protected] <https://plus.google.com/+CodeTwoSoftware> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:29 AM Randy MacLeod <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2020-05-19 8:06 p.m., Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Randy MacLeod <[email protected]> > >> Sent: den 19 maj 2020 23:45 > >> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]>; Rahul Kumar > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]>; Richard Purdie > >> <[email protected]>; OE-core <openembedded- > >> [email protected]>; Trevor Gamblin > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2] bzip2: Add test suite for bzip2 > >> > >> On 2020-05-19 12:29 p.m., Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > >>> The jzlib license is a three clause BSD license, and so is the > >>> go/LICENSE, so you should be able to set LICENSE as: > >>> > >>> LICENSE = "bzip2-1.0.6 & GPLv3+ & Apache-2.0 & MS-PL & BSD-3-Clause & > Zlib" > >> > >> Peter, > >> > >> I respectfully disagree. > >> > >> The only source that is _executed_ in normal use by bzip2-test is > >> the run-tests.sh script that is licensed as GPLv3+ > > > > Well, I am definitely not a lawyer either, > > Phew! :) > > > but I am pretty sure that > > whether something that is distributed under a certain license is > > executed or not is irrelevant (unless of course the license covers > > execution of the code). > > There's a difference between a legal report and the Yocto LICENSE tag. > The Yocto tag is meant to be an over-all/community acknowledged license > for the _code_ in the package that ends up as executable / script on > the target. We should probably document this in greater detail, perhaps > in: > > > https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/mega-manual/mega-manual.html#var-LICENSE > > A more comprehensive analysis usually includes a file by file > IP report often accompanied by a summary generated by an IP expert. > > > > >> The other files, although they came from source packages, > >> are *only* used as test data. The source code has been completely > >> stripped out, hasn't it? > > > > Given that they were originally distributed in an archive together > > with a LICENSE/COPYING/similar file covering the entire archive, > > those files are still covered by that license even if they are not > > source files per se. > > > Licenses describe the terms that apply to items that are covered > under copyright. Data generally can not be copyrighted. > > From my IP contact: > > --- > > In order for something to be copyrightable three requirements > must be satisfied: > > 1. The work represents a creative form of expression > (basic facts do not represent a creative form of expression) > > 2. The work is original (novel) – not copied from someone else. > Two different people could come up with similar creative forms > of expression. They just can’t copy from someone else. > > 3. It must be put in tangible form (e.g., written, digital, …). > Someone can’t just claim it resides inside their head. > > > > Data as a general is not copyrightable because it fails number 1. > However if someone can argue that a certain compilation of data > represents some form of creative expression, they might have a case. > This is discussed in the first two paragraphs here: > > https://libguides.library.kent.edu/data-management/copyright > > > Data can be protected under patent or trade secret law but different > requirements apply and a different license would need to be created. > Open Source licenses are largely copyright licenses. Although sometimes > they include patent terms, they are generally not considered patent > licenses. > > --- > > > Most of the files here are clearly just data and > are therefore neither subject to copyright nor governed by > typical open source licenses. > > Some possible exceptions are: > > dotnetzip/dancing-color.ps.bz2 > - This could be considered as software since that's what a PostScript > file is. In fact it's the 'Dancing links" paper by Donald Knuth: > https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/preprints.html > Copyright is not asserted but is of course implied for such works. > No licensing terms are declared. > > go/compress/Isaac.Newton-Opticks.txt.bz2 > - out of copyright since unfortunately the author died long ago :-/ > It seems that the people who prepared this document: > "Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, steve harris, Josephine > Paolucci and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at > http://www.pgdp.net. " > are interested in: > "...dedicated to the preservation of written works > that are in the Public Domain ..." > > > https://www.pgdp.net/wiki/DP_Official_Documentation:General/Distributed_Proofreaders_Mission_Statement > > > > It seems that the README/COPYING/LICENSE.txt/... files > were left in the repo by people who while well intentioned, > were misguided. We could try to fix that error upstream. > > > > > >> If, instead of compressed data, > >> someone were to give me an image file covered by a creative common's > >> license and the image had a watermark that when extracted produced > >> file with source code with a FOO license, would you change the > >> package license to include FOO? In fact, we don't even look at > >> image file licensing let alone at embedded watermarks. > > > > Well, if there is a file distributed in the picture (not using the > > word "image" here to avoid confusing the discussion any more) in the > > form of a watermark, then that is no different from distributing it > > as part of a tar.gz file (albeit a bit unusual). Whatever license > > that file is covered by still applies in both cases. > > > To me, this is the crux of the matter, i.e.: > "Whatever license that file is covered by > still applies in both cases." > > I agree with you but I think that the LICENSE can not and should > not and was not meant to apply to the data files. > > > > > Actually, here is something to think about. I recently read an > > article published by the Linux Foundation called "Docker Containers > > for Legal Professionals". [1] There they discussed the distribution > > of Docker images. Consider this, you take an existing Docker image, > > e.g., fedora:32, and remove everything that is covered by GPL-3.0 > > (not sure how to actually accomplish that, but anyway) and then you > > distribute this new Docker image to someone. Does this mean that > > GPL-3.0 covered code is being distributed? The answer is yes. > > Because of the way Docker images are made up from layers, you need > > to adhere to the licenses covering everything in all layers, not > > just the final result. And somewhere down the stack of layers > > making up your Docker image is still all of that GPL-3.0 code > > that you removed in a higher layer. > > Yes, that's an interesting case that makes sense due to the layered > nature of the docker images. > > > > >> I'm not a lawyer so this is simply my opinion on the matter. > >> How do we come to an agreement? > >> I'd be happy to add a comment in the recipe explaining our position: > >> > >> # This package contains a script and test data this is derived from > >> # other software packages as explained in the top level README. > >> # Although there are COPYING files explaining the license terms > >> # for each sub-directory, the files in each directory are only used > >> # as test data so the LICENSING terms do not appear to apply to > >> # the recipe as we ship it and have therefore NOT been incorporated > >> # into the bzip2-ptests recipe licensing tags. > > > > I would be very worried seeing such a statement, and I believe any > > lawyer would too. > > As written I agree but if I change it to: > > >> # This package contains a script and test data this is derived from > >> # other software packages as explained in the top level README. > >> # Although there are COPYING files explaining the license terms > >> # for each sub-directory, the files in each directory are only used > # for each sub-directory, the files in each directory are only > > >> # as test data so the LICENSING terms do not appear to apply to > # test data so the LICENSING terms do not appear to apply to > > >> # the recipe as we ship it and have therefore NOT been incorporated > >> # into the bzip2-ptests recipe licensing tags. > > > would that make more sense? > > > So this email chain is all about deciding between: > 1) LICENSE = \ > "bzip2-1.0.6 & GPLv3+ & Apache-2.0 & MS-PL & BSD-3-Clause & Zlib" > > and > > 2) LICENSE = "GPLv3+" > > > My vote is still for 2). Yours? > > ../Randy > > > > > > > >> I can consult with some intellectual property experts that I know > >> about this particular case if you like. > > > > If you have the possibility to do so, I think it may be a good idea. > > > >> ../Randy > > > > //Peter > > > > [1] > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Docker-Containers-for-Legal-Professionals-Whitepaper_v4.ac_-3.pdf > > > >>> You also need to add: > >>> > >>> LICENSE_${PN} = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> LICENSE_${PN}-dev = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> LICENSE_${PN}-dbg = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> LICENSE_${PN}-doc = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> LICENSE_${PN}-src = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> LICENSE_libbz2 = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> > >>> so the non-ptest packages are not affected by the licenses for the > >> ptest > >>> package. > >>> > >>> //Peter > >>> > >>> *From:*Rahul Kumar <[email protected]> > >>> *Sent:* den 19 maj 2020 13:58 > >>> *To:* Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> > >>> *Cc:* Randy MacLeod <[email protected]>; Alexander Kanavin > >>> <[email protected]>; Richard Purdie > >>> <[email protected]>; OE-core > >>> <[email protected]>; Trevor Gamblin > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2] bzip2: Add test suite for bzip2 > >>> > >>> Hi Peter, > >>> > >>> I am sharing a few information related to bzip2-test source and > >>> licensing information. > >>> As per your suggestion and as per my understanding I added License to > >>> the bzip2 recipe file. > >>> > >>> bzip2-tests.git source tree structure is given below > >>> (here showing licence related fle, removed other file names ) > >>> > >>> bzip2-tests.git/ > >>> ├──commons-compress > >>> │ ├──LICENSE.txt > >>> │ > >>> ├──dotnetzip > >>> │ ├──License.txt > >>> │ ├──License.zlib.txt > >>> | > >>> ├──go > >>> │ ├──LICENSE > >>> │ > >>> ├──lbzip2 > >>> ├──pyflate > >>> ├──README > >>> └── run-tests.sh > >>> > >>> source code link: > >>> https://sourceware.org/git/bzip2-tests.git > >>> > >>> bzip2-tests.git source contains > >>> 1) comman-commpress: which is Originally distributed under the Apache > >>> License Version 2.0. > >>> > >>> See LICENSE.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> 2) dotnetzip: > >>> (i) The DotNetZip Library is distributed under the MicroSoft Public > >> License > >>> (Ms-PL) see the License.txt file. > >>> (ii) The BZ2 related resources are distributed under the licenses in > >>> License.zlib.txt. > >>> > >>> 3) go: > >>> > >>> Go is distributed under a BSD-style license. > >>> See the LICENSE file. > >>> > >>> 4) lbzip2: > >>> lbzip2 is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under > >> the > >>> terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free > >> Software > >>> Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any > >> later > >>> version > >>> > >>> 5) pyflate: You may use and distribute this code and documentation > >> under any > >>> DFSG-compatible license (eg. BSD, GNU GPLv2). > >>> > >>> 6) run-tests.sh: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the > >>> terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL); either > >>> version 3, or (at your option) any later version. > >>> > >>> > >>> SO in recipe I added the License like below > >>> LICENSE = "bzip2-1.0.6 & GPLv3+ & Apache-2.0 & MS-PL & BSD " > >>> LICENSE_${PN}-ptest = "GPLv3+ & Apache-2.0 & MS-PL & BSD" > >>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = > >>> > >> > "file://LICENSE;beginline=4;endline=37;md5=600af43c50f1fcb82e32f19b32df46 > >> 64 > >>> \ > >>> > >>> file://${WORKDIR}/git/commons- > >> compress/LICENSE.txt;md5=86d3f3a95c324c9479bd8986968f4327 > >>> \ # For comman-commpress (Apache-2.0) > >>> > >>> > >> > file://${WORKDIR}/git/dotnetzip/License.txt;md5=9cb56871eed4e748c3bc7e8ff > >> 352a54f > >>> \ # For dotnetzip (Ms-PL) > >>> > >>> > >> > file://${WORKDIR}/git/dotnetzip/License.zlib.txt;md5=cc421ccd22eeb2e5db6b > >> 79e6de0a029f > >>> \ # For dotnetzip (jzlib +zlib) > >>> > >>> file://${WORKDIR}/git/go/LICENSE;md5=5d4950ecb7b26d2c5e4e7b4e0dd74707 \ > >>> # For go (BSD-style license) > >>> > >>> here I need few suggestion: > >>> > >>> 1) I added the BSD and GPLv3+ license in LICENSE and LICENSE_${PN}- > >> ptest. > >>> but not added LIC_FILES_CHKSUM for GPLv3 and BSD because > >>> bzip2-tests.git source code doesn't have GPLv3 and BSD License text > >> file > >>> like other > >>> directories. > >>> > >>> 2) License.zlib.txt: This is a combination of two licence jzlib and > >>> zlib. In meta/files/common-licenses Zlib license is available but not > >> jzlib. > >>> In this case how can I proceed? > >>> > >>> Kindly comment on this and feel free to point out if i am wrong at any > >>> place. > >>> > >>> *Thanks & Regards,* > >>> > >>> Rahul Kumar > >>> > >>> Software Engineer,Linux Solutions Engineering > >>> > >>> Group,Montavista Software LLC > >>> > >>> Email Id: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <https://plus.google.com/+CodeTwoSoftware> > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:18 AM Peter Kjellerstedt > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> As I wrote in my previous mail, when it comes to licenses, it is > >> the > >>> distribution that is important. So if you build a package > >>> (bzip2-ptest) that includes code that is GPL-3.0, it does not > >> matter > >>> if that code is only used as a binary blob, it is still > distributed > >>> in the package, and thus the package needs to be covered by the > >>> GPL-3.0 license. > >>> > >>> //Peter > >>> > >>> *From:*[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of > >>> *Rahul Kumar > >>> *Sent:* den 17 maj 2020 21:18 > >>> *To:* Randy MacLeod <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> *Cc:* Alexander Kanavin <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Richard Purdie > >>> <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; OE-core > >>> <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Trevor > Gamblin > >>> <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2] bzip2: Add test suite for > bzip2 > >>> > >>> Hi Randy, > >>> > >>> patch has been accepted by bzip2 community with additional > changes. > >>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=bzip2- > >> tests.git;a=commit;h=f9061c030a25de5b6829e1abf373057309c734c0 > >>> > >>> > >>> So I need your suggestion with respect to Yocto. > >>> > >>> Since required changes for ptest infrastructure is integrated to > >> the > >>> bzip2-tests.git source code. > >>> So now we can just change the SRCREV with the latest commit > instead > >>> of applying the patch to the bzip2-tests.git source code. > >>> > >>> And since we are just integrating the bzip2-tests source to the > >>> bzip2 recipe and not modifying any file so i think no need to add > >>> any License for it. > >>> > >>> > >>> Now patch will look like > >>> > >> ===================================================================== > >>> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2/Makefile.am > >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2/Makefile.am > >>> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ runtest: > >>> else echo "FAIL: sample2 decompress"; fi > >>> @if cmp sample3.tst sample3.ref; then echo "PASS: sample3 > >>> decompress";\ > >>> else echo "FAIL: sample3 decompress"; fi > >>> + ./bzip2-tests/run-tests.sh > --tests-dir="$(PWD)/bzip2-tests" > >>> > >>> install-ptest: > >>> sed -n '/^runtest:/,/^install-ptest:/{/^install- > >> ptest:/!p}' \ > >>> @@ -56,6 +57,7 @@ install-ptest: > >>> cp $(srcdir)/sample1.bz2 $(DESTDIR)/ > >>> cp $(srcdir)/sample2.bz2 $(DESTDIR)/ > >>> cp $(srcdir)/sample3.bz2 $(DESTDIR)/ > >>> + cp -rf $(srcdir)/../git $(DESTDIR)/bzip2-tests > >>> ln -s $(bindir)/bzip2 $(DESTDIR)/bzip2 > >>> > >>> install-exec-hook: > >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.8.bb > >>> <http://bzip2_1.0.8.bb> b/meta/recipes- > >> extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.8.bb > >>> <http://bzip2_1.0.8.bb> > >>> index d58f553..c5aa690 100644 > >>> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.8.bb > >> <http://bzip2_1.0.8.bb> > >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.8.bb > >> <http://bzip2_1.0.8.bb> > >>> @@ -8,13 +8,17 @@ LICENSE = "bzip2-1.0.6" > >>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = > >>> > >> > "file://LICENSE;beginline=4;endline=37;md5=600af43c50f1fcb82e32f19b32df46 > >> 64" > >>> > >>> SRC_URI = " > https://sourceware.org/pub/${BPN}/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.gz > >>> < > https://sourceware.org/pub/$%7bBPN%7d/$%7bBPN%7d-$%7bPV%7d.tar.gz> > >> \ > >>> + > >>> git://sourceware.org/git/bzip2-tests.git;name=bzip2-tests > >>> <http://sourceware.org/git/bzip2-tests.git;name=bzip2-tests> \ > >>> file://configure.ac <http://configure.ac > >;subdir=${BP} > >> \ > >>> file://Makefile.am;subdir=${BP} \ > >>> file://run-ptest \ > >>> " > >>> + > >>> SRC_URI[md5sum] = "67e051268d0c475ea773822f7500d0e5" > >>> SRC_URI[sha256sum] = > >>> "ab5a03176ee106d3f0fa90e381da478ddae405918153cca248e682cd0c4a2269" > >>> > >>> +SRCREV_bzip2-tests = "f9061c030a25de5b6829e1abf373057309c734c0" > >> *<< > >>> this commit Id includes latest charges for ptest infrastruct.* > >>> + > >>> UPSTREAM_CHECK_URI = "https://www.sourceware.org/pub/bzip2/"; > >>> > >>> PACKAGES =+ "libbz2" > >>> @@ -39,7 +43,7 @@ do_install_ptest () { > >>> > >>> FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}" > >>> > >>> -RDEPENDS_${PN}-ptest += "make" > >>> +RDEPENDS_${PN}-ptest += "make bash" > >>> > >>> PROVIDES_append_class-native = " bzip2-replacement-native" > >>> BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk" > >>> > >> > ========================================================================= > >> ======== > >>> > >>> Kindly comment on it and feel free to point out, if i am wrong at > >>> any place. > >>> > >>> *Thanks & Regards,* > >>> > >>> Rahul Kumar > >>> > >>> Software Engineer,Linux Solutions Engineering > >>> > >>> Group,Montavista Software LLC > >>> > >>> Email Id: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <https://plus.google.com/+CodeTwoSoftware> > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:56 AM Randy MacLeod > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > >> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2020-04-27 3:39 p.m., Alexander Kanavin wrote: > >>> > You need to first see from the failure page which > >>> configuration is > >>> > failing, for example non-gpl3 is one such. > >>> > > >>> > Then you find that configuration in config.json. The below > >>> should > >>> > hopefully be self-explanatory in how you should set up the > >> build? > >>> > > >>> > |"non-gpl3" : { "NEEDREPOS" : ["poky", "meta-gplv2"], > >>> "MACHINE" : > >>> > "qemux86", "BBTARGETS" : "core-image-minimal > >>> core-image-full-cmdline", > >>> > "extravars" : [ "INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = '*GPLv3'", > >>> "WARN_QA_remove = > >>> > 'incompatible-license'" ], "EXTRACMDS" : [ > >>> > "../../yocto-autobuilder-helper/scripts/check-gplv3" ] }, > >>> > > >>> > | > >>> > > >>> > | > >>> > | > >>> > > >>> > |Alex > >>> > >>> Hi Rahul, > >>> > >>> Sorry for my late reply. > >>> > >>> The commit log for v2 is very good now! > >>> Thanks for incorporating my --pedantic suggestions. ;-) > >>> > >>> It seems that you need a perl dependency for something (docs? > >>> $ cd .../bzip2.git > >>> $ grep -r "perl " * > >>> format.pl:#!/usr/bin/perl -w > >>> README.XML.STUFF:It uses format.pl <http://format.pl>, a > >>> perl script... > >>> > >>> Then we need to figure out how to deal with the GPLv3 issue. > >>> > >>> The buildbot output can be tedious to figure out. I haven't > >> really > >>> spent enough time plugging away at it to be proficient yet > >> either. > >>> Have you been able to reproduce the problems that Richard > >> reported? > >>> If not, and you've tried for a bit, then just say so and I'll > >> try to > >>> help tomorrow or early next week. > >>> > >>> It looks like you are packaging the test code/data with the > >> main > >>> package > >>> not in bzip2-ptest. Have a look at: > >>> meta/recipes-support/libpcre/libpcre_8.44.bb > >>> <http://libpcre_8.44.bb> > >>> for an example. There are many more. > >>> Also, if you look at oe-core.git: > >>> $ rgrep LICENSE_ * | grep PN > >>> you can see many examples of sub-packages with different > >> licenses > >>> than the main package. One example is: > >>> meta/recipes-support/gnutls/gnutls_3.6.13.bb > >>> <http://gnutls_3.6.13.bb> > >>> I hope that can address the buildbot problem but I haven't > >> tried it > >>> myself yet. > >>> > >>> BTW, Trevor has gotten the YP autobuilder going at Wind River > >> and > >>> he'll be sending a few documentation updates next week or so. > >>> That may help in case you want to reproduce the YP AB test > >>> infrastructure. I expect that you don't _have_ to do so but > >>> I think it would be good if more contributing organizations > did > >>> have an instance with only limited builders of the YP AB so > >> that > >>> we can do more testing before Richard runs our changes through > >>> the main system. Richard has cautioned that the YP AB has lots > >> of > >>> builders each of which has many cores but I hope that we can > at > >>> least > >>> do some AB checking ourselves. > >>> > >>> ../Randy > >>> > >>> > >>> > | > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 20:54, Rahul Kumar < > [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > >> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Hi Richard/Alexander, > >>> > > >>> > I am not able to understand how I can use the below > >> file. > >>> > > >>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder- > >> helper/tree/config.json > >>> > > >>> > did you mean to say that i have to set MACRO in > >>> local.conf based on > >>> > this file. > >>> > > >>> > *Thanks & Regards,* > >>> > Rahul Kumar > >>> > Software Engineer,Linux Solutions Engineering > >>> > Group,Montavista Software LLC > >>> > Email Id: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> > <https://plus.google.com/+CodeTwoSoftware> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:46 PM Richard Purdie > >>> > <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > <mailto:[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 18:30 +0200, Alexander > Kanavin > >>> wrote: > >>> > > You need to look at configurations defined here: > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder- > >> helper/tree/config.json > >>> > > and replicate them locally. Then you can > >> reproduce the > >>> > failures that > >>> > > the AB gets in those configurations. > >>> > > >>> > That start of the failing logs on the autobuilder > >>> also list out the > >>> > configuration options for that build. > >>> > > >>> > Cheers, > >>> > > >>> > Richard > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> # Randy MacLeod > >>> # Wind River Linux > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> # Randy MacLeod > >> # Wind River Linux > > > -- > # Randy MacLeod > # Wind River Linux >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#138652): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/138652 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/73224911/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
