Wrapping the entire file with '#ifdef' makes debugging complex preprocessor logic a nightmare, so I'm not a fan of this idea. Looking for the missing `#endif` in such a file can be really frustrating.
pt., 17 mar 2023 o 16:42 Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 6:16 AM raiden00pl <raiden0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > NVMC support for NRF52 chips was ported from Nordic SDK which was > released > > on the BSD license (old times), so these features should depend on > > CONFIG_ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS=y. Users must manually enable support for the > > BSD components to continue using the mentioned features. > > > > Related PR: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8827 > > > Thanks for posting about it to the list. I just added my review there, > but it got me thinking: > > We have many files listed in LICENSE which are non-Apache-2.0-License > and I haven't had a chance to check but I have a feeling that there > could be more files that should be protected by ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS / > ALLOW_MIT_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS that > are not currently protected. > > For each file that has a non-Apache-2.0-License at the top, should we > wrap the entire file contents with: > > #ifdef ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS > . > . > . > #endif /* ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS */ > > (for the appropriate value of * of course)? > > Yes, doing that will cause compiler errors when a build tries to use > those files and doesn't have the required ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS enabled, > but that will help us find all those cases relatively quickly and fix > them by adding "depends on ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS" in Kconfig. > > It will ensure that when someone doesn't choose ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS / > ALLOW_MIT_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS then their build will > actually be licensed as advertised. > > If we want to do it then obviously it should be separate PRs, maybe > one for each component we find... > > Thoughts? > > Nathan >
