On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:39:35AM +0200, Michael Tretter wrote: > 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 <m.tret...@pengutronix.de> > > > --- > > > 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.
In any case, the respective _LICENSE_FILES variable should be set somewhere too. - Roland -- Roland Hieber, Pengutronix e.K. | r.hie...@pengutronix.de | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
