linux/poky.git/meta/classes/license.bbclass, branch sumo

classes: sanity-check LIC_FILES_CHKSUM

2018-08-29T14:23:50+00:00

We assume that LIC_FILES_CHKSUM is a file: URI but don't actually verify this, which can lead to problems if you have a URI that resolves to a path of / as Bitbake will then dutifully checksum / recursively. [ YOCTO #12883 ] (From OE-Core rev: e2b8a3d5a10868f9c0dec8d7b9f5f89fdd100fc8) (From OE-Core rev: a5db618986746bf9082c4b3cbdac4e523328432e) Signed-off-by: Ross Burton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license.bbclass: be a bit more strict when searching ${PN}-${LICENSE_PACKAGE_SUFFIX} in packages

2018-04-10T08:10:36+00:00

* linux-firmware contains ${PN}-license package since this commit: commit 1ee083da0730408fffdbbf5f29abc299c0e61be9 Author: Jackie Huang Date: Mon Apr 13 10:17:21 2015 +0800 linux-firmware: fix the mess of licenses * LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE functionality in license.bbclass when enabled adds new package with suffix: LICENSE_PACKAGE_SUFFIX ??= "-lic" but then it checks if ${PN}-${LICENSE_PACKAGE_SUFFIX} is included in PACKAGES before adding it and when found it shows: WARNING: linux-firmware-1_0.0+gitAUTOINC+4c0bf113a5-r0 do_package: linux-firmware-lic package already existed in linux-firmware. and doesn't add the ${PN}-lic to PACKAGES and causes another warning: WARNING: linux-firmware-1_0.0+gitAUTOINC+4c0bf113a5-r0 do_package: QA Issue: linux-firmware: Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package: /usr /usr/share /usr/share/licenses /usr/share/licenses/linux-firmware that's because it was searching ${PN}-lic in PACKAGES as a string so it found ${PN}-lic as a substring of ${PN}-license, add a split to search in an list (From OE-Core rev: 9b9897fc034819385a9d4ce591cc79dd458f3f24) Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license.bbclass: Minor simplification of get_deployed_dependencies()

2018-04-10T08:10:36+00:00

Since ${SSTATE_ARCHS} now contains ${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS} there is no longer any need to add those extra architectures to the list of architectures handled in get_deployed_dependencies(). (From OE-Core rev: e55e6df4f1434458cdfa0e2d3610b48119e5a782) Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

classes/license: drop erroneous sha256 parameter in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM

2017-08-31T22:30:03+00:00

In OE-Core commit a48fea275b08ff3d3dfc9a928aeb04768db35873, a check on the value of a "sha256" parameter was added, however there was no mention of this in the commit message and no corresponding code to actually verify the checksum as sha256 was added along with it either, so there's no point in getting the value. Additionally it was assuming that a sha256 value would be present without checking first, with the result that if you leave out the md5 value in a recipe intentionally in order to get it to tell you the correct value on the next build, you got a traceback instead of the appropriate error containing the information. Drop this entirely - if we want to implement this we need to do it properly. (From OE-Core rev: e9eaa7d15fe7ab643ab19556dab84051f8f1974e) Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

meta: drop do_bootdirectdisk do_vmimg references

2017-08-03T10:14:13+00:00

do_bootdirectdisk and do_vmimg had been dropped by commit 929ba563: [ image: Convert vmdk/vdi/qcow2 to strict CONVERSION_CMD types ] Also drop the references to them and image-vm. (From OE-Core rev: 609f7f4ecd17c8299b97d9face098e3cc44fa6eb) Signed-off-by: Ming Liu Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license.bbclass: improve reproducibility

2017-04-10T22:00:43+00:00

Two identical builds can end up having deploy/licenses folders that differ. This is observed in cases where there are several different license files of the same name in different folders, i.e. "COPYING". In those case we have to differentiate the files somehow and we do it via file expensions such as COPYING.0, COPYING.1. However, which file will get which extension is presently random. This means, for example, that COPYING.0 in one build is the same as COPYING.1 in the other (and vice versa). Although there is mothing wrong with this, for the sake of binary reproducibility it is preferable to have a deterministic outcome. (From OE-Core rev: 007ebc84979b1bc8b7520097793c7ab6d646c243) Signed-off-by: Juro Bystricky Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license: don't assume source files are UTF-8

2017-03-10T14:50:11+00:00

We can't assume that source files are entirely UTF-8, so when copying the license blocks open the file as binary instead of text. [ YOCTO #11135 ] (From OE-Core rev: b606e1430c36f1ad528fbfbbf9b8b6243390b879) Signed-off-by: Ross Burton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license.bbclass: run chown only under pseudo

2017-03-01T23:27:09+00:00

The copy_license_files() function in license.bbclass is called in two different contexts. First, it is run as part of the do_populate_lic task. In addition, it is called from do_package task when LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE is enabled. The function has code that changes the owner of license files to root which is meant only to happend in the latter case - i.e. under do_package which is run under pseudo. Previously, the code was blindly always running chown and just ignored errors that happened when running from do_populate_lic. This patch changes it to be more intelligent, only doing chown when running under pseudo. [YOCTO #10897] (From OE-Core rev: 19118a1408f32bb24d95ab3d7d7faed58cbae900) Signed-off-by: Markus Lehtonen Signed-off-by: Ross Burton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

classes/license.bbclass: Don't copy unneeded licenses by package

2017-03-01T23:27:06+00:00

Usually a recipe only provides one package but when provides more than one package the LICENSE variable per package (i.e. linux-firmware) needs to take into account to avoid unnecesary copy of licenses into packages. The patch validates if LICENSE exists in package LICENSES in order to don't copy unneeded licenses. As result of this patch some packages will not contain licenses there are not into LICENSE variable. For example: acl contains GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2.1+ libacl contains LGPLv2+ instead of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2.1+ This behaviour is declared on the acl recipe as: SUMMARY = "Utilities for managing POSIX Access Control Lists" HOMEPAGE = "http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/acl/" SECTION = "libs" LICENSE = "LGPLv2.1+ & GPLv2+" LICENSE_${PN} = "GPLv2+" LICENSE_lib${BPN} = "LGPLv2.1+" [YOCTO #10325] (From OE-Core rev: 8c8c8edea9c9015e21f47f3d10e6f45446a2823b) Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón Signed-off-by: Ross Burton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie

license.bbclass: Don't copy again LICENSE already handled as no-generic

2017-03-01T23:27:06+00:00

The NO_GENERIC_LICENSE mapping was added [1] to enable copy LICENSES from upstream source code into recipe licenses, previously that only common-licenses was processed. This result on copy twice the NO_GENERIC_LICENSE specified because there is a mapping between license in LIC_CHKSUM and NO_GENERIC_LICENSE. In order to avoid double copy one as generic_ and other as LICENSE. keep track of licenses already copied. For linux-firmware the result will be only generic_ licenses into common-licenses. [YOCTO #10325] [1] http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-April/104222.html (From OE-Core rev: 95b9e2cd26c7cae265ff52af90480b75251f00e5) Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón Signed-off-by: Ross Burton Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie