On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 10:19:31AM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 7/25/25 5:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 05:30:59PM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On 7/25/25 5:18 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On more recent versions of setuptools the warning about not being able > > > > to find the files specified in license_files has re-appeared. This is > > > > because as best I can tell, it can't and won't look in $(srctree) but > > > > rather only subdirectories of scripts/dtc/pylibfdt. Since we already > > > > provide both SPDX tags and a license field with the SPDX contents, let > > > > us just drop license_files as it's not mandatory. > > > > > > > > > > IANAL but I believe we need to ship the file, that's part of the license > > > requirements for both GPL-2.0-or-later and BSD-2-Clause. > > > > I mean, we who? As part of "we should re-examine how we bundle Python > > stuff", yes, I don't know if our pylibfdt stuff is at all optimal > > anymore and we should maybe we talking with upstream dtc more. But > > $(srctree)/Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt and > > $(srctree)/Licenses/bsd-2-clause.txt exist and we don't publish the > > python binaries. > > > > Yeah I guess it's the last part that matters, as far as I understood from > what you wrote, this means it's essentially only used locally and never > uploaded anywhere for consumption by users, so I believe that would be fine. > > I guess this patch is an ok stop-gap measure?
Well, until such future point as we try and handle libfdt/dtc stuff differently, maybe. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
