[1/4] pulseaudio: add GConf dependency

Submitted by Ross Burton on Oct. 30, 2012, 11 a.m.

Details

Message ID CAJTo0LZ1=uTF26dn2MdE6ZwRgOYcVS9i-uqGWYab4uEXnAGTtA@mail.gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Ross Burton Oct. 30, 2012, 11 a.m.
On 30 October 2012 10:31, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>> Oh joy, one of those instances where GPLv3 isn't actually a problem.
>>
>> gnome-common is some scripts and tools used at configure time, so
>> there isn't any linkage, so there isn't any GPLv3 in the images, so
>> there isn't a problem.
>>
>> The question is how do we express this?
>
> Should it be whitelisted?

So I did some digging.  The file in git that is explicitly v3 only
appeared in 3.6, so I considered reverting to 3.5.5 before it
appeared.  Then I noticed that we're still shipping gnome-common 2.28
from 2009, which doesn't have any v3 code in (to be honest it barely
has any license at all, but it's definitely not v3.  I've pinged
upstream.

The v3 license in the metadata came from:

commit 8a2b4e2a5e85f4937e72f03e579b1aaa264074a1
Author: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 1 15:35:11 2010 +0800

    gnome-common: Fix the metadata

    Signed-off-by: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>

Shouldn't that be gnome-common-native?  It won't make much difference
to the structure of the sysroot as it's allarch already, but it makes
it clear that in this instance it's a build dependency only.

(patch coming)

Ross

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
b/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
index 075ac14..c2eae72 100644
--- a/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
+++ b/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
@@ -1,7 +1,11 @@ 
-LICENSE = "GPL"
+DESCRIPTION = "Common macros for building GNOME applications"
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnome.org/"
+BUGTRACKER = "https://bugzilla.gnome.org/"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv3"

Looks like a misguided attempt at fixing a warning from not specifying
what version of GPL was in use.  Traditionally the bulk of GNOME is
LGPLv2.1

But following the dependencies, gnomebase adds DEPENDS=gnome-common.

Comments

Koen Kooi Oct. 30, 2012, 4:06 p.m.
Op 30 okt. 2012, om 12:00 heeft "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On 30 October 2012 10:31, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>>> Oh joy, one of those instances where GPLv3 isn't actually a problem.
>>> 
>>> gnome-common is some scripts and tools used at configure time, so
>>> there isn't any linkage, so there isn't any GPLv3 in the images, so
>>> there isn't a problem.
>>> 
>>> The question is how do we express this?
>> 
>> Should it be whitelisted?
> 
> So I did some digging.  The file in git that is explicitly v3 only
> appeared in 3.6, so I considered reverting to 3.5.5 before it
> appeared.  Then I noticed that we're still shipping gnome-common 2.28
> from 2009, which doesn't have any v3 code in (to be honest it barely
> has any license at all, but it's definitely not v3.  I've pinged
> upstream.
> 
> The v3 license in the metadata came from:
> 
> commit 8a2b4e2a5e85f4937e72f03e579b1aaa264074a1
> Author: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>
> Date:   Thu Jul 1 15:35:11 2010 +0800
> 
>    gnome-common: Fix the metadata
> 
>    Signed-off-by: Zhai Edwin <edwin.zhai@intel.com>
> 
> diff --git a/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
> b/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
> index 075ac14..c2eae72 100644
> --- a/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
> +++ b/meta/packages/gnome/gnome-common_2.20.0.bb
> @@ -1,7 +1,11 @@
> -LICENSE = "GPL"
> +DESCRIPTION = "Common macros for building GNOME applications"
> +HOMEPAGE = "http://www.gnome.org/"
> +BUGTRACKER = "https://bugzilla.gnome.org/"
> +
> +LICENSE = "GPLv3"
> 
> Looks like a misguided attempt at fixing a warning from not specifying
> what version of GPL was in use.  Traditionally the bulk of GNOME is
> LGPLv2.1
> 
> But following the dependencies, gnomebase adds DEPENDS=gnome-common.
> Shouldn't that be gnome-common-native?  

No, it checks for the files in the target sysroot. I can't say it that's a bug or not, though.

regards,

Koen