On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote:
> If that is the way we want to move forward, then my recommendation would > be to > add a new field for that. > > LICENSE-SRC = "source license list" > LICENSE = "declared license for the expected output of the build" > LICENSE_<package> = "The license for the items in this specific package" > > Where: > > LICENSE ?= "${LICENSE-SRC}" > > LICENSE_<package> ?= "${LICENSE}" > > I see a lot of potential work here, but I don't see the benefit though. > > I don't know of any cases where someone has gotten in trouble, or even > questioned, when the build system has a slightly different license then > output > of the build. The GNU build tools are definitely the biggest example I > can give > here. > I would say we should introduce LICENSE-SRC, alter archiver.bbclass to use it, and set LICENSE-SRC ?= "${LICENSE}" instead. Much less work, but then we have a variable we can append to if we run into a case like that which we've discussed, without increasing work for the more common cases. -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core