On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:47:34AM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:43:19AM +0200, Michael Tretter wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Michael Tretter <[email protected]> > > --- > > rules/binutils.make | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/rules/binutils.make b/rules/binutils.make > > index ca1080bc811d..094347e3f8bf 100644 > > --- a/rules/binutils.make > > +++ b/rules/binutils.make > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ BINUTILS_SUFFIX := tar.bz2 > > BINUTILS_URL := $(call ptx/mirror, GNU, > > binutils/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX)) > > BINUTILS_SOURCE := $(SRCDIR)/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX) > > BINUTILS_DIR := $(BUILDDIR)/$(BINUTILS) > > +BINUTILS_LICENSE := GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND > > LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later > > No. The version is derived from the toolchain, so we cannot be sure that > this is always correct. What we need to do is export the license > information in the toolchain and import it here when possible. We already > do the same thing for glibc and gcclibs.
Hm. The difference between glibc/gcclibs and the binutils is that for binutils only the version is extracted from the toolchain and the binutils are build from source in the BSP. Thus, we could also extract the license information from the downloaded source code, which would be the same license as in the toolchain. I'm not sure if this is actually simpler than exporting the license information in the toolchain. Michael _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list [email protected]
