From patchwork Tue Jan 17 08:31:46 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [CONSOLIDATED, PULL, 01/62] base.bbclass: add support for LICENSE_FLAGS Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:31:46 -0000 From: Saul Wold X-Patchwork-Id: 19531 Message-Id: <0327cd1099f6af41f2cae86b8205b794e2486e2f.1326786989.git.sgw@linux.intel.com> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org From: Tom Zanussi LICENSE_FLAGS are a per-recipe replacement for the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE mechanism. In the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE mechanism, any package name mentioned in the global COMMERCIAL_LICENSE list is 'blacklisted' from being included in an image. To allow the blacklisted package into the image, the corresponding packages need to be removed from the COMMERCIAL_LICENSE list. This mechanism relies on a global list defined in default-distrovars.inc. The LICENSE_FLAGS mechanism essentially implements the same thing but turns the global blacklist into a per-recipe whitelist. Any recipe can optionally define one or more 'license flags'; if defined, each of the license flags defined for a recipe must have matching entries in a global LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST variable. Typically a recipe will have a single license flag specific to itself, which allows it to be individually toggled on and off. For example, a package named 'foo' might define a single license flag, 'commercial_foo': LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_foo" This says that in order for the foo package to be included in the image, the string 'commercial_foo' must appear in the LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST variable: LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST = "commercial_foo" Because the typical case is indeed to create LICENSE_FLAGS containing the package name, the LICENSE_FLAGS could just as well have been specified as: LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_${PN} which would pick up the package name automatically. The mechanism has the word 'flags' in the name because although the typical case is to specify a single string to match as above, the user can add additional strings that might be thought of additional 'attributes' of a license that also need to be matched. This allows for the creation and specification of license categories that could be used to flexibly match sets of packages that match certain attributes without forcing them to all be specified individually. For example, a particular set of recipes that are typically used together might all contain a 'commercial_video' flag. Additionally, some of them might specify an additional 'binary' flag meaning that it's not possible to get the source for those packages. Specifying both 'commercial_video and binary' in the LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST would allow them all to be pulled in, but if 'binary' was missing, it would only allow those packages that had source to be allowed in to the image. The current behavior of COMMERCIAL_LICENSE is replicated as mentioned above by having the current set of COMMERCIAL_LICENSE flags implement their using LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial_${PN}. That being the case, the current COMMERCIAL_LICENSE can equivalently be specified in the new scheme by putting the below in local.conf: # This is a list of packages that require a commercial license to ship # product. If shipped as part of an image these packages may have # implications so they are disabled by default. To enable them, # un-comment the below as appropriate. #LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST = "commercial_gst-fluendo-mp3 \ # commercial_gst-openmax \ # commercial_gst-plugins-ugly \ # commercial_lame \ # commercial_libmad \ # commercial_libomxil \ # commercial_mpeg2dec \ # commercial_qmmp" The above allows all of the current COMMERCIAL_LICENSE packages in - to disallow a particular package from appearing in the image, simply remove it from the whitelist. Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi --- meta/classes/base.bbclass | 7 +++++++ meta/classes/license.bbclass | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass index f0c358e..085bb36 100644 --- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass @@ -349,6 +349,13 @@ python () { if license == "INVALID": bb.fatal('This recipe does not have the LICENSE field set (%s)' % pn) + unmatched_license_flag = check_license_flags(d) + if unmatched_license_flag: + bb.debug(1, "Skipping %s because it has a restricted license (%s) not" + " whitelisted in LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST" % (pn, unmatched_license_flag)) + raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("because it has a restricted license (%s) not" + " whitelisted in LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST" % unmatched_license_flag) + commercial_license = " %s " % d.getVar('COMMERCIAL_LICENSE', 1) import re pnr = "[ \t]%s[ \t]" % pn.replace('+', "\+") diff --git a/meta/classes/license.bbclass b/meta/classes/license.bbclass index 4b98e29..bc638fc 100644 --- a/meta/classes/license.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/license.bbclass @@ -282,6 +282,36 @@ def incompatible_license(d,dont_want_license): return True return False + +def check_license_flags(d): + """ + This function checks if a recipe has any LICENSE_FLAGs that aren't whitelisted. + + If it does, it returns the first LICENSE_FLAG missing from the whitelist, or all the + the LICENSE_FLAGs if there is no whitelist. + + If everything is is properly whitelisted, it returns None. + """ + + def all_license_flags_match(flags, whitelist): + """ Return first unmatched flag, None if all flags match """ + + for flag in flags.split(): + if not flag in whitelist.split(): + return flag + return None + + license_flags = d.getVar('LICENSE_FLAGS', True) + if license_flags: + license_flags_whitelist = d.getVar('LICENSE_FLAGS_WHITELIST', True) + if not license_flags_whitelist: + return license_flags + unmatched_flag = all_license_flags_match(license_flags, license_flags_whitelist) + if unmatched_flag: + return unmatched_flag + return None + + SSTATETASKS += "do_populate_lic" do_populate_lic[sstate-name] = "populate-lic" do_populate_lic[sstate-inputdirs] = "${LICSSTATEDIR}"