On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 18:06 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: den 25 mars 2021 17:52
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; Oleksiy Obitotskyi -
> > X (oobitots - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) <oobit...@cisco.com>; Luca Bocassi
> > <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > Cc: bluelightn...@bluelightning.org; Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate
> > recipe to allow bootstrapping
> >
> > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 16:19 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > Sent: den 25 mars 2021 15:27
> > > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; Oleksiy
> > Obitotskyi -
> > > > X (oobitots - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) <oobit...@cisco.com>; Luca
> > Bocassi
> > > > <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > Cc: bluelightn...@bluelightning.org; Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate
> > > > recipe to allow bootstrapping
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:22 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > > > Sent: den 25 mars 2021 10:34
> > > > > > To: Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco)
> > > > > > <oobit...@cisco.com>; Luca Bocassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>;
> > > > > > openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > > > Cc: bluelightn...@bluelightning.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > > > > <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in
> > separate
> > > > > > recipe to allow bootstrapping
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 09:17 +0000, Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots
> > -
> > > > > > GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) wrote:
> > > > > > > Could you look into this warning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WARNING: util-linux-2.36.2-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: util-
> > linux-
> > > > dev
> > > > > > rdepends on util-linux-libuuid-dev, but it isn't a build
> > dependency?
> > > > > > [build-deps]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/61/builds/3226
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That failure was my fault when testing some fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've sent out a patch which renames util-linux-uuid to util-linux-
> > > > libuuid
> > > > > > and sorts out the license issue Peter reported.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't mind the recipe being renamed and cleaned up, but I would
> > prefer
> > > > > to see my entire patch for the license parts being either integrated
> > > > before
> > > > > this or squashed into it, whichever you prefer. It does not make
> > sense
> > > > to
> > > > > use the same LIC_FILES_CHKSUM for util-linux-libuuid as for util-
> > linux,
> > > > > and setting the other LICENSE variables in util-linux.inc no longer
> > > > makes
> > > > > sense as they are only relevant for util-linux.
> > > >
> > > > I'm torn on that. Code with the other licenses is present, just not
> > used
> > > > in the final output and I personally suspect that having one
> > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM
> > > > is going to be easier to maintain in the future rather than two
> > separate
> > > > ones.
> > >
> > > I actually checked all the files that go into -dev and -src before
> > suggesting
> > > this change, and all files are either marked as public domain or use a
> > > BSD-3-Clause license.
> >
> > There is a difference between what ends up in ${S} and what ends up in the
> > binary packages. LICENSE clearly governs the latter. Its the scope of
> > LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM which there are differences of opinion on.
>
> Well, the latter governs what ends up in ${PN}-lic, so having a lot of
> unrelated (to the installed packages) license files in LIC_FILES_CHECKSUM
> does not make sense (to me). If everything that is built and (possibly)
> installed and thus distributed is covered by BSD-3-Clause licenses, why
> should ${PN}-lic include a lot of license files for unrelated code?
I hadn't considered ${PN}-lic :(.
We can't win. If we change LIC_FILES_CHKSUM we'll see complaints from
people scanning the code that there are licenses present in WORKDIR that
are not in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM. If we don't change it, ${PN}-lic does give
more information than necessary. I still think the latter is probably
safer and makes recipe upgrades easier.
Licensing in general needs a step back and an overhaul. Sadly people are
generally only prepared to do this piecemeal solving their specific
issue rather than the general case and big picture.
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#149990):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/149990
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/81254724/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
