Re: Yocto Project and OE - Where now?

[Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 10:12 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/1/19 Graeme Gregory <dp@xora.org.uk>:
> 
> >> I wholehearthy agree with the proposal that it is left to the package
> >> maintainers discretion.
> >> Wrt the GPLv2+ version. I suggest to reflect this in the name.
> >> E.g. you could have samba and samba-gplv2 (or perhaps samba-gplv2 and
> >> samba-gplv3). Then it immediately becomes obvious why there are two
> >> versions.
> >> Similarly with versions that became a lot fatter over time (which imho
> >> is a good reason to keep the old version).
> > I am totally against this idea, it just makes a total mess of the
> > namespace. We have the ability to put comments in bitbake files use it.
> 
> I don't think there are that many recipes for which this is relevant,
> so the namespace clutter is limited.
> Comments in bb files may work equally well. Problem is that those
> comments are not written in the files.

Surely that what the LICENSE field in the metadata is for?

Aside: In Poky we have various features to ensure recipes have license
information included, and functionality to blacklist packages of a
certain license - these will doubtless be merged into oe-core too.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre