Automatically produce legal compliance info

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>

---
?package/gettext/gettext.mk | ? ?3 +++
?1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

package/gettext/gettext.mk +0 -0

index f3605da..1d9d84d 100644
@@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY): $(GETTEXT_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_BINARY)
 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?autopoint envsubst gettext.sh gettextize msg* ?gettext)

? ? ? ?touch -c $@

?gettext: host-pkg-config $(if $(BR2_PACKAGE_LIBICONV),libiconv) $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY)

?gettext-unpacked: $(GETTEXT_DIR)/.unpacked
--
1.7.5.4

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

Moreover, will this be added to each package for which no legal info is provided? What about making this message the default by putting it in pkg-gentargets.mk, if no suitable variables were defined?

Quoted 13 lines · Luca Ceresoli

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]>

---
  package/gettext/gettext.mk |    3 +++
  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

package/gettext/gettext.mk +0 -0

index f3605da..1d9d84d 100644
@@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY): $(GETTEXT_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_BINARY)
                autopoint envsubst gettext.sh gettextize msg* ?gettext)
        touch -c $@
 

package/gettext/gettext.mk $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY): $(GETTEXT_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_BINARY) · line 118

Quoted 3 lines

package/gettext/gettext.mk +3 -0

+gettext-legal-info:
+       @$(call legal-warning-pkg,gettext,cannot produce any legal info)
+

I don't think this statement is not entirely correct. It's not that we 'cannot' produce the info. It's just that currently, we did not add the necessary license definitions, right?
What about something like 'legal-info not yet implemented' or 'no legal info saved yet' or ...?

Moreover, will this be added to each package for which no legal info is provided? What about making this message the default by putting it in pkg-gentargets.mk, if no suitable variables were defined?

Quoted 18 lines · Thomas De Schampheleire

Quoted 15 lines · On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]> ?wrote:

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]>

---
?package/gettext/gettext.mk | ? ?3 +++
?1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

package/gettext/gettext.mk +0 -0

index f3605da..1d9d84d 100644
@@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY):
 $(GETTEXT_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_BINARY)
 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?autopoint envsubst gettext.sh gettextize msg* ?gettext)

? ? ? ?touch -c $@

Quoted 9 lines

package/gettext/gettext.mk $(STAGING_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_TARGET_BINARY): $(GETTEXT_DIR)/$(GETTEXT_BINARY) · line 118

Quoted 3 lines

package/gettext/gettext.mk +3 -0

+gettext-legal-info:
+ ? ? ? @$(call legal-warning-pkg,gettext,cannot produce any legal info)
+

I don't think this statement is not entirely correct. It's not that we 'cannot' produce the info. It's just that currently, we did not add the necessary license definitions, right?
What about something like 'legal-info not yet implemented' or 'no legal info saved yet' or ...?

Yes, 'legal-info not yet implemented' is more understandable. I'll change that.

Quoted 3 lines

Moreover, will this be added to each package for which no legal info is provided? What about making this message the default by putting it in pkg-gentargets.mk, if no suitable variables were defined?

Gentargets packages without _LICENSE / _LICENSE_FILES defined are handled automatically by gentargets. They get listed in the manifest this way:

$ cat legal-info/manifest.csv
package,version,license,license files,source archive
...
freetype,2.4.8,unknown,not saved,freetype-2.4.8.tar.bz2

The problem with non-gentargets packages is that they do not get listed automatically in the manifest, because the manifest is produced by the gentargets infrastrucure.

Hence we should:
?- convert these packages to gentargets, or
?- manually implement a<PKG>-legal-info for these packages, or ?- make the user aware that these packages are not handled by the legal-info ? stuff: no manifest entry, no tarball, no license files.

The first option is the best thing to do, but it's out of the scope of this patchset. The number of manual packages is consistently approaching zero anyway.

I don't like the second option: this is work that would mostly be wasted when
converting to gentargets. I would rather spend my time converting to gentargets.
?The third option is the warning you see.

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>

---
?docs/manual/using.txt | ? 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ?1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

docs/manual/using.txt +0 -0

index 09f4136..411136b 100644
@@ -281,3 +281,30 @@ Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest file:
 ?* +BSD-4c+: Original BSD 4-clause license;
 ?* +BSD-3c+: BSD 3-clause license;

?* +BSD-2c+: BSD 2-clause license.

docs/manual/using.txt +17 -0

+
+Complying with the Buildroot license
+------------------------------------
+
+Buildroot itself is an opensource software, released under the
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU General Public
+License, version 2] or (at your option) any later version.
+However, being a build system, it is not normally part of the end product:
+if you develop the root filesystem, kernel, bootloader or toolchain for a
+device, the code of Buildroot is only present on the development machine, not
+in the device storage.
+
+Nevertheless, the general view of the Buildroot developers is that you should
+release the Buildroot source code along with the source code of other packages
+when releasing a product that contains GPL-licensed software.
+This is because the
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html[GNU GPL]

Quoted 6 lines · Luca Ceresoli

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]>

---
  docs/manual/using.txt |   27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

docs/manual/using.txt +0 -0

docs/manual/using.txt Buildroot, with the name used in the manifest file: · line 310

Quoted 2 lines

docs/manual/using.txt +2 -0

+Keep in mind this is only the Buildroot developers' opinion, and you should
+consult your legal department or lawyer for any doubt.

I'm not a native English speaker myself, but I would have written 'in case of any doubt' instead of 'for any doubt'.

This allows to automatically collect material that may be needed to comply with the license of packages that Buildroot prepares for the target device.

The core of the implementation is made by the following parts:
- in package/pkg-utils.mk some helper functions are defined for common actions

    such as generating a warning, producing info about a package etc;
  - in package/pkg-gentargets.mk, within the GENTARGETS framework, a new
    <PKG>-legal-info target produces all the info for a given package;

- Makefile implements the top-level targets:
- legal-info-prepare creates the output directory and produces legal info about Buildroot itself and the toolchain, which mostly means just warning the user that this is not implemented;
- legal-info, the only target that is supposed to be used directly, depends on all of the above and finishes things by producing the README files from the various pieces.

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]>

Makefile +4 -0

+	@$(call legal-manifest,buildroot,$(BR2_VERSION_FULL),GPLv2+,COPYING,not saved)
+	@$(call legal-warning,the Buildroot source code has not been saved)
+	@$(call legal-warning,the toolchain has not been saved)
+	@cp $(CONFIG_DIR)/.config $(LEGAL_INFO_DIR)/buildroot.config

+$(2)_RAWNAME = $(patsubst host-%,%,$(1))

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +1 -0

+
  $(1)-show-depends:
  			@echo $$($(2)_DEPENDENCIES)

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +22 -0

+$(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES = $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)
+endif
+endif
+endif
+endif
+# defaults for packages without tarball or license files
+$(2)_MANIFEST_TARBALL ?= not saved
+$(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES ?= not saved
+
+# legal-info: produce legally relevant info.
+$(1)-legal-info:
+ifeq ($$($(2)_LICENSE),PROPRIETARY)
+# Proprietary packages: nothing to save
+else ifeq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),local)
+# Packages without a tarball: don't save and warn
+	@$(call legal-warning-pkg-savednothing,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),local)
+else ifeq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),override)
+	@$(call legal-warning-pkg-savednothing,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),override)
+else
+# Other packages
+# Save license files if defined
+ifeq ($(call qstrip,$$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)),)

Quoted 22 lines · Luca Ceresoli

This allows to automatically collect material that may be needed to comply with
the license of packages that Buildroot prepares for the target device.

The core of the implementation is made by the following parts:
- in package/pkg-utils.mk some helper functions are defined for
common actions

    such as generating a warning, producing info about a package etc;

- in package/pkg-gentargets.mk, within the GENTARGETS framework, a new
<PKG>-legal-info target produces all the info for a given package;
- Makefile implements the top-level targets:
- legal-info-prepare creates the output directory and produces
legal info
about Buildroot itself and the toolchain, which mostly means
just warning
the user that this is not implemented;
- legal-info, the only target that is supposed to be used
directly, depends
on all of the above and finishes things by producing the README
files from
the various pieces.

Quoted 1 line

Signed-off-by Luca Ceresoli<[email protected]>

Looks great!

Any chance that this can still go into the 2012.05 release? I have
one customer
who would be really pleased with that...

Except for the dirs dependency, I think it can go in as it is. But
of course I
do have some optional remarks :-)

Makefile HOST_DEPS = $(sort $(foreach dep,\ · line 334

Quoted 3 lines

Makefile +3 -0

+TARGETS_LEGAL_INFO:=$(patsubst %,%-legal-info,\
+        $(filter-out host-makedevs,\
+        $(TARGETS) $(BASE_TARGETS) $(TARGETS_HOST_DEPS) $(HOST_DEPS)))) 

I guess host-makedevs is filtered out here because it has no tar file?
In that case, the same should be done for makedevs and mcookie. But maybe
it's better to define the SITE_METHOD of these packages as local. Then they
will be registered as "not saved" in the manifest.

[snip]

Makefile source: dirs $(TARGETS_SOURCE) $(HOST_SOURCE) · line 468

Quoted 2 lines

Makefile +2 -0

+legal-info-clean:
+    @rm -fr $(LEGAL_INFO_DIR) 

We usually use '$(RM) -r', I think.

Makefile source: dirs $(TARGETS_SOURCE) $(HOST_SOURCE) · line 470

Quoted 4 lines

Makefile +2 -0

+
+legal-info-prepare: $(LEGAL_INFO_DIR) 

I would add an announcement here:

    @$(call MESSAGE,"Collecting legal info") 

Quoted 4 lines

(quoted diff) +2 -0

+    @$(call legal-license-file,buildroot,COPYING,COPYING)
+    @$(call legal-manifest,package,version,license,license 

files,source archive)

I would Capitalize the titles.

Quoted 6 lines

+ @$(call
legal-manifest,buildroot,$(BR2_VERSION_FULL),GPLv2+,COPYING,not saved)

Makefile +3 -0

+    @$(call legal-warning,the Buildroot source code has not been saved)
+    @$(call legal-warning,the toolchain has not been saved)
+    @cp $(CONFIG_DIR)/.config $(LEGAL_INFO_DIR)/buildroot.config 

[snip]

Quoted 1 line

+$(2)_RAWNAME = $(patsubst host-%,%,$(1))

Not for this patch, but it would be better to add an argument to
GENTARGETS for the lowercase non-host name.

Also, the %/.stamp_patched target could reuse this variable.

Quoted 1 line

package/pkg-gentargets.mk $(2)_OVERRIDE_SRCDIR = $($(2)_SITE) · line 258

Quoted 9 lines

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +4 -0

+ifneq ($$($(3)_LICENSE),PROPRIETARY)
+ifneq ($$($(3)_SITE_METHOD),local)
+ifneq ($$($(3)_SITE_METHOD),override)
+# Packages that have a tarball need it downloaded and extracted 

beforehand
+$(1)-legal-info: $(1)-extract $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR)

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +3 -0

+endif
+endif
+endif 

I would combine these conditions with the ones below for setting
_MANIFEST_TARBALL. Or you could put it as

ifneq ($$($(2)_MANIFEST_TARBALL),not saved)
$(1)-legal-info: $(1)-extract $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR)
endif

BTW, why is it $(3)_LICENSE here and $(2)_LICENSE below?

Quoted 9 lines

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +1 -0

+
  $(1)-show-depends:
              @echo $$($(2)_DEPENDENCIES)

@@ -412,6 +436,47 @@ else
  $(2)_KCONFIG_VAR = BR2_PACKAGE_$(2)
  endif
 

package/pkg-gentargets.mk else · line 444

Quoted 6 lines

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +6 -0

+# Set values used later for legal-info manifest
+ifneq ($$($(2)_LICENSE),PROPRIETARY)
+ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),local)
+ifneq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),override)
+$(2)_MANIFEST_TARBALL = $$($(2)_SOURCE)
+ifneq ($(call qstrip,$$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)),) 

Why is there a qstrip here? The variable is defined in a .mk
file so doesn't contain quotes, right?

Quoted 26 lines

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +24 -0

+$(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES = $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)
+endif
+endif
+endif
+endif
+# defaults for packages without tarball or license files
+$(2)_MANIFEST_TARBALL ?= not saved
+$(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES ?= not saved
+
+# legal-info: produce legally relevant info.
+$(1)-legal-info:
+ifeq ($$($(2)_LICENSE),PROPRIETARY)
+# Proprietary packages: nothing to save
+else ifeq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),local)
+# Packages without a tarball: don't save and warn
+    @$(call legal-warning-pkg-savednothing,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),local)
+else ifeq ($$($(2)_SITE_METHOD),override)
+    @$(call legal-warning-pkg-savednothing,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),override)
+else
+# Other packages
+# Save license files if defined
+ifeq ($(call qstrip,$$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES)),)
+    @$(call legal-license-nofiles,$$($(2)_RAWNAME))
+    @$(call legal-warning-pkg,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),cannot save license 
 ($(2)_LICENSE_FILES not defined))

package/pkg-gentargets.mk else · line 476

Quoted 10 lines

package/pkg-gentargets.mk +8 -0

+else
+    @for F in $$($(2)_LICENSE_FILES); do \
+        $(call 
 legal-license-file,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),$$$${F},$$($(2)_DIR)/$$$${F}); \
+        done
+endif
+# Copy the source tarball (just hardlink if possible)
+    @cp -l $(DL_DIR)/$$($(2)_SOURCE) $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR) 
 2>/dev/null || \
+       cp $(DL_DIR)/$$($(2)_SOURCE) $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR) 

Genius!

Quoted 4 lines

(quoted diff) +2 -0

+endif
+    @$(call 

legal-manifest,$$($(2)_RAWNAME),$$($(2)_VERSION),$$($(2)_LICENSE),$$($(2)_MANIFEST_LICENSE_FILES),$$($(2)_MANIFEST_TARBALL)) +

I'm not sure if it would work, but maybe this could be moved out
of the GENTARGETS and defined as a pattern rule, like all the other stuff. That saves a lot of double $$.

Quoted 1 line · Arnout Vandecappelle

On 05/07/12 22:12, Luca Ceresoli wrote:

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 3 lines

+TARGETS_LEGAL_INFO:=$(patsubst %,%-legal-info,\
+ $(filter-out host-makedevs,\
+ $(TARGETS) $(BASE_TARGETS) $(TARGETS_HOST_DEPS) $(HOST_DEPS))))

I guess host-makedevs is filtered out here because it has no tar file? In that case, the same should be done for makedevs and mcookie. But maybe it's better to define the SITE_METHOD of these packages as local. Then they will be registered as "not saved" in the manifest.

My ignorance, I didn't know about the existence of mcookie in Buildroot. I would like to omit entirely these packages from the legal-info list, as they are actually a part of Buildroot.
But since using filter-out is pretty dirty, I think a clean implementation would be to exclude from legal-info processing all packages with an empyt _SOURCE variable. The assumption here is that if they don't have an external source, they are part of Buildroot.

Do you think this is a good idea?

Quoted 3 lines

I'm not sure if it would work, but maybe this could be moved out of the GENTARGETS and defined as a pattern rule, like all the other stuff. That saves a lot of double $$.

When I tried to do this change, it turned out that it would add more lines than the dollars it removes, so I reverted everything.
I can't exclude it might be done in a better way that I was able to do, anyway.

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

"Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <[email protected]> writes:

Hi,

here is the third version of the legal-info feature implementation.

For the records, previous versions are here:
v1: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2012-January/049590.html
v2: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2012-March/051132.html

The approach is based on two per-package constants in eack .mk file, such as:
?FOO_LICENSE = GPLv2+
?FOO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
?BAR_LICENSE = LGPLv2.1 + GPLv3
?BAR_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING.LGPL demo-app/COPYING.GPL3 ?MYAPP_LICENSE = PROPRIETARY
This is the only effort required to the package creator. If <PKG>_LICENSE is not specified it defaults to "unknown".

After running 'make legal-info', the following things will be produced in $(O)/legal-info/:
?$ find legal-info/ -type f
?legal-info/README ? ? ? ? ? ?# Lists saved stuff, warns about unsaved stuff ?legal-info/licenses.txt ? ? ?# Text of all licenses ?legal-info/buildroot.config ?# The buildroot config ?legal-info/licenses/buildroot/COPYING ? ? ? # License files, one dir per pkg ?legal-info/licenses/busybox/LICENSE ?legal-info/licenses/...other packages... ?legal-info/manifest.csv ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # CSV table summarizing all info ?legal-info/sources/busybox-1.19.4.tar.bz2 ? # tarballs ?legal-info/sources/kmod-5.tar.xz ?legal-info/sources/libtool-2.2.10.tar.gz ?legal-info/sources/...other packages...

Given the technical difficulties, the toolchain and the BR sources are not saved. Warnings are generated to make sure the user is aware of this.

One of the issues raised about the previous patchset was about packages without a license file, such as jpeg or fbset. These usually declare their license in a comment at the top of one or more source files.

Yann E. Morin suggested to solve this problem in a general way implementing a _LICENSE_HOOK that does whatever is needed to copy the license.
I found the idea good and started implementing it, but I did not reach anything decently structured yet. As I don't want to further delay the basic work, I chose to postpone this feature to a later step.

License compliance advice to users
==================================

During the latest Buildroot Developer Day in February, a request was made to give an advice from Buildroot developers' to Buildroot users about how to comply with both Buildroot's and the packages' licenses.
This is added to the manual in patch 9. Of course this must match as much as possible what the developers think, so please read it and give comments!

Possible future improvements
============================

These are left as future enhancemenst, after the merge of the first core functionality, in order to keep it as simple as possible for a first step.

- The toolchain is not currently saved (internal, external, ct-NG, no ?discrimination). Actually, only GENTARGETS-based packages are handled, so the ?best approach might be to "simply" migrate the toolchains to GENTARGETS.

- Save the Buildroot sources too. If the sources are not a git clone this might ?be as simple as tar of the current directory and exclude dl and output, but ?this has never been tested. Also, make sure this works for out-of-tree BR ?builds.

- Add a hook for a post-legal-info script.

- Add a <PKG>_LICENSE_HOOK for packages without a license file.

Changelog
=========

Changed in v3:
- moved the $(1)-legal-info target near the end of GENTARGETS_INNER, out of the ?may of target sequencing where it used to be in the previous patch sets;
- improved readability by creating a set of functions to produce a warning, ?to add a line to the csv, etc as suggested by ThomasDS (this made the core ?code shorter and cleaner);
- clarified the BSD-like licenses, differentiating 2/3/4 clauses and others;
- clarified *GPL licenses, and dropped definitions for packages that do not ?have a clear and simple use of those licenses (tslib, busybox, qt);
- dropped warning patches for tinyhttpd, xfsprogs, microperl, fis, doom-wads, ?uemacs and cups which have now been converted to GEN/AUTOTARGETS;
- updated after the split of Makefile.package.in in pkg-*.mk and related ?cleanups;
- added a few lines of explanation in the message of the first big commit that ?implements all the logic;
- documented the legal-info stuff in the manual;
- added (tentative) advice about Buildroot license compliance;
- various improvements here and there.

Changed in v2:
- squashed together patches 1-4 from RFC v1; now all the legal-info mechanism ?is implmented in a unique patch.
- rebase on top of current master
- don't clean $(REDIST_SOURCES_DIR): it is a subdir of $(LEGAL_INFO_DIR), so ?doesn't need to be cleaned twice
- added legal-info-clean target
- made legal-info target .PHONY
- remove the output/legal-info dir before populating it
- when saving source tarballs, create hardlinks instead of copies if possible
- add infrastructure to warn the user about info that has not been saved: a ?.warnings file is filled with such info and displayed to the user at the ?end of the legal-info processing
- ensure manual (non-GENTARGETS-based) packages return error, at least; this ?required to explicitly create a -legal-info target for each of them, or ?they would have been silently skipped.
- list also Buildroot in the manifest file! :)
- save the Buildroot .config
- save license files listed in <PKG>_LICENSE_FILES, both in a separate ?directory for each package and all together in a unique file
- various cleanups.

Patches
=======

- The implementation is all in the first commit, which is commented on its ?own.
- A few patches follow to make non-GENTARGETS packages warn about their ?dumbness.
- A couple of patches add documentation about the legal-info stuff.
- Other commits define licenses for some packages.

The following changes since commit 057c729c2438107b426576121bcf83f792734a6f:

?external-toolchain: add support for Linaro 2012.04 (2012-05-07 17:08:37 +0200)

are available in the git repository at:
?git://github.com/lucaceresoli/buildroot.git legal-info

Luca Ceresoli (22):
?legal-info: infrastructure to collect legally-relevant material ?gettext: warn that legal-info is not implemented ?netkitbase: warn that legal-info is not implemented ?netkittelnet: warn that legal-info is not implemented ?newt: warn that legal-info is not implemented
?ttcp: warn that legal-info is not implemented
?vpnc: warn that legal-info is not implemented ?manual: document usage of the legal-info feature ?manual: add advice about GPL compliance for Buildroot ?linux: define license
?m4: define license
?mpc: define license
?fakeroot: define license
?bzip2: define license
?directfb: define license
?iostat: define license
?lzo: define license
?lzop: define license
?libusb: define license
?pcre: define license
?netsnmp: define license
?berkeleydb: define license

?Makefile ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? 42 +++++++++-
?docs/manual/adding-packages-gentargets.txt | ? 18 ++++
?docs/manual/using.txt ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ?127 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
?linux/linux.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/berkeleydb/berkeleydb.mk ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/bzip2/bzip2.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/directfb/directfb.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/fakeroot/fakeroot.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/gettext/gettext.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?package/iostat/iostat.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/libusb/libusb.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/lzo/lzo.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/lzop/lzop.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/m4/m4.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/mpc/mpc.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/netkitbase/netkitbase.mk ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?package/netkittelnet/netkittelnet.mk ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?package/netsnmp/netsnmp.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/newt/newt.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?package/pcre/pcre.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?2 +
?package/pkg-gentargets.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ? 65 ++++++++++++++
?package/pkg-utils.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? 25 ++++++
?package/ttcp/ttcp.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?package/vpnc/vpnc.mk ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?3 +
?support/legal-info/README.header ? ? ? ? ? | ? 24 +++++
?support/legal-info/README.warnings-header ?| ? ?4 +

?26 files changed, 346 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) ?create mode 100644 support/legal-info/README.header ?create mode 100644 support/legal-info/README.warnings-header

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

busybox 1.20.0 Downloading

Hi Luca,

I pulled from your branch and did some tests with it. Some observations:

- If you start from a clean env without .config, the 'legal-info' target does not exist. This is because it's in the 'have-config' block. This may make sense, but it would be nice if this were noted somewhere (the fact that you have to have a config first).

To make this easier for you, Buildroot can collect for you some material you will probably need. To produce this material, after you configured Buildroot with +make menuconfig+, +make xconfig+ or +make gconfig+, run:

- I then created a config, (either with a defconfig (I took pandaboard as example) or by just starting 'make menuconfig' and immediately saving) and executed 'make legal-info'. Now I got:

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

busybox 1.20.0 Downloading

/home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/dl/busybox-1.20.0.tar.bz2:
No such file or directory /home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/dl/busybox-1.20.0.tar.bz2:
No such file or directory
make: *** [/home/tdescham/repo/contrib/buildroot-import/output/build/busybox-1.20.0/.stamp_downloaded] Error 1

This was fixed by explicitly running 'make dirs'. I think then that 'dirs' should be a prerequisite for the legal-info target.

- After that I played a bit by adding legal info to busybox and see how legal-info behaved. All was as expected, no comments here.

- Then I tried specifying a proprietary package, and noticed that this is case-sensitive PROPRIETARY. Although I understand that this is easier, and I am not against keeping this, this fact was not mentioned in the docs. In fact, the common license list in usage.txt does not specify the PROPRIETARY license at all. I feel that we should mention this possibility at least somewhere, either in that using.txt place, or in the adding-packages-gentargets.txt file.