Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

Hi,
I am seeing this issue too. Basically, even if gnutls is not
explicitly added to IMAGE_INSTALL, some GPLv3 rpm (the -extra one) is
getting added to the rootfs in spite of the restriction to not include
GPLv3 packages. Any idea on how to get a list of package dependencies
to get a clue at least on why gnutls (or which of the rpm's it creates
) gets(get) dragged in? Any way to find this out automatically?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

I tried something else today.

I created from scratch a new image-minimal and i added wpa-supplicant to 
IMAGE_INSTALL - rpm's names are wpa-supplicant-[stuff]. After finishing 
this image i could see that gnutls-extra is again in rootfs even if i 
excluded GPLv3 from build. After searching a little i could see that 
gnutls is a dependency for wpa-supplicant and, in the generated gnutls 
spec, that gnutls-extra is required by gnutls-bin.

If bin requires extra than this build should have ended with an error... 
no provider as GPLv3 excluded. Am i right?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 18:10 +0200, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> I tried something else today.
> 
> I created from scratch a new image-minimal and i added wpa-supplicant to 
> IMAGE_INSTALL - rpm's names are wpa-supplicant-[stuff]. After finishing 
> this image i could see that gnutls-extra is again in rootfs even if i 
> excluded GPLv3 from build. After searching a little i could see that 
> gnutls is a dependency for wpa-supplicant and, in the generated gnutls 
> spec, that gnutls-extra is required by gnutls-bin.
> 
> If bin requires extra than this build should have ended with an error... 
> no provider as GPLv3 excluded. Am i right?

Are you running a build which includes GPLv3, then running a build
excluding GPLv3? I suspect doing that could confuse the system a little
but I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be.

If on the other hand you always exclude GPLv3 from a given build
directory, there shouldn't be any way for it to become contaminated.

There are various changes in master which are working towards making the
license checking a build and runtime check rather than the build time
check in 1.1.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

Hi,I am experiencing this issue on a new build from scratch configured
toexclude GPLv3 packages/files. I do not have gnutls added to any
.bbtasks file, it gets added as a dependency of some package(s) I
ambuilding.So I would have 2 issues here: first, after the build
completes, I getthe GPLv3 libraries from the -extra rpm into the
rootfs; second, howcan I get a view of all the packages that drag
gnutls into the build?(I don't think that looking into each *.bb for
the dependency is veryuseful; is there any file in which I can find
some sort of adependency tree for all the packages I am
building?)Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 18:10 +0200, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>> I tried something else today.
>>
>> I created from scratch a new image-minimal and i added wpa-supplicant to
>> IMAGE_INSTALL - rpm's names are wpa-supplicant-[stuff]. After finishing
>> this image i could see that gnutls-extra is again in rootfs even if i
>> excluded GPLv3 from build. After searching a little i could see that
>> gnutls is a dependency for wpa-supplicant and, in the generated gnutls
>> spec, that gnutls-extra is required by gnutls-bin.
>>
>> If bin requires extra than this build should have ended with an error...
>> no provider as GPLv3 excluded. Am i right?
>
> Are you running a build which includes GPLv3, then running a build
> excluding GPLv3? I suspect doing that could confuse the system a little
> but I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be.
>
> If on the other hand you always exclude GPLv3 from a given build
> directory, there shouldn't be any way for it to become contaminated.
>
> There are various changes in master which are working towards making the
> license checking a build and runtime check rather than the build time
> check in 1.1.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

I went into code a little.
The problem is, as i see, that this gnutls package is included in 
LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3. This is why this package is not checked for 
LICENSE and is passed further.

In base.class - line 399:
if pn not in hosttools_whitelist and pn not in lgplv2_whitelist and pn 
not in dont_want_whitelist:

So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable, 
LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc 
gcc-runtime"

So the problem goes like this:

Why isn't this list "LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3" checked and part of it ends 
up in rootfs final archive (if is dependency for a package - take 
connman as example) even if these packages are GPLv3? Can anybody 
explain me this VARIABLE and the story that comes along?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable,
> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc
> gcc-runtime"

most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1
e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

So for example, in the situation when I have a build from which I want
to exclude GPLv3 code from, but gnutls is added to the build as a
dependency of some package, and the licensing of gnutls is as follows:

LICENSE = "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+"
LICENSE_${PN} = "LGPLv2.1+"
LICENSE_${PN}-xx = "LGPLv2.1+"
LICENSE_${PN}-bin = "GPLv3+"
LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"
LICENSE_${PN}-openssl = "GPLv3+"

then my understanding is either don't include any code from gnutls as
it's double licence or just include the non GPLv3 rpms (the first and
second rpm). Am I right?

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable,
>> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
>> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc
>> gcc-runtime"
>
> most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1
> e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Anders Darander]

* Foinel <flocirel@gmail.com> [111213 10:19]:

> So for example, in the situation when I have a build from which I want
> to exclude GPLv3 code from, but gnutls is added to the build as a
> dependency of some package, and the licensing of gnutls is as follows:

> LICENSE = "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+"
> LICENSE_${PN} = "LGPLv2.1+"
> LICENSE_${PN}-xx = "LGPLv2.1+"
> LICENSE_${PN}-bin = "GPLv3+"
> LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"
> LICENSE_${PN}-openssl = "GPLv3+"

> then my understanding is either don't include any code from gnutls as
> it's double licence or just include the non GPLv3 rpms (the first and
> second rpm). Am I right?

Yes, it's OK to include the first two rpms, as they only should include
files licensed under LGPLv2.1+. The last three rpm's needs to be avoided
to get a GPLv3 free image.

If any of the rpm's would have been licensed under "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+",
it would also have been fine to include that one in your image, as in
this case, you're free to choose between the two licenses.

Cheers,
Anders

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
> >> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable,
> >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
> >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc
> >> gcc-runtime"

> > most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1
> > e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception
> > _______________________________________________
> > poky mailing list
> > poky@yoctoproject.org
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

-- 
Anders Darander
ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

This is exactly the issue: the third rpm (-extra) gets included in the rootfs.
So in the rootfs I get the files from the first rpm and the third rpm
(second rpm does not get included in my *.tar.bz2 archive).
One more thing to note: libgnutls-extra.so.26.21.8 from the rootfs
(which is the library from the -extra rpm, which is GPLv3 code) has a
different size from the one in
tmp/work/armv5te-poky-linux-gnueabi/gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1/packages-split/gnutls-extra/usr/lib/libgnutls-extra.so.26.21.8
(they are both stripped, so what would explain this size difference?).

Thanks.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Anders Darander <anders@chargestorm.se> wrote:
> * Foinel <flocirel@gmail.com> [111213 10:19]:
>
>> So for example, in the situation when I have a build from which I want
>> to exclude GPLv3 code from, but gnutls is added to the build as a
>> dependency of some package, and the licensing of gnutls is as follows:
>
>> LICENSE = "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+"
>> LICENSE_${PN} = "LGPLv2.1+"
>> LICENSE_${PN}-xx = "LGPLv2.1+"
>> LICENSE_${PN}-bin = "GPLv3+"
>> LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"
>> LICENSE_${PN}-openssl = "GPLv3+"
>
>> then my understanding is either don't include any code from gnutls as
>> it's double licence or just include the non GPLv3 rpms (the first and
>> second rpm). Am I right?
>
> Yes, it's OK to include the first two rpms, as they only should include
> files licensed under LGPLv2.1+. The last three rpm's needs to be avoided
> to get a GPLv3 free image.
>
> If any of the rpm's would have been licensed under "GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+",
> it would also have been fine to include that one in your image, as in
> this case, you're free to choose between the two licenses.
>
> Cheers,
> Anders
>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>> >> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable,
>> >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
>> >> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc
>> >> gcc-runtime"
>
>> > most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1
>> > e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > poky mailing list
>> > poky@yoctoproject.org
>> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>> _______________________________________________
>> poky mailing list
>> poky@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>
> --
> Anders Darander
> ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Foinel <flocirel@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is exactly the issue: the third rpm (-extra) gets included in the rootfs.
> So in the rootfs I get the files from the first rpm and the third rpm

thats a bug.

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

> thats a bug.
>
It certainly looks like one.
Shouldn't this gnutls be removed from WHITELIST?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

Looking at gnutls-2.12.14/libextra/COPYING it says just GPLv3, so no
dual licensing or exceptions of any kind for these extra libraries.
Can anyone explain why in
meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc it says:

# This is a list of packages that are used by the build system to
build the distribution, they are not
# directly part of the distribution..
HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= ""
WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "less"
LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc gcc-runtime"

Does this mean gnutls is some sort of a host tool?
Because of this fact (gnutls being in LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3), then
the restriction to avoid GPLv3 packages seems not applicable to
gnutls. Does anyone know if gnutls is a special case in what concerns
the licensing?

Thanks.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>> So as you can see here is checked every package. This variable,
>> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3, is defined in default-distrovars.inc as:
>> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc
>> gcc-runtime"
>
> most of them have exceptions along with gplv3 or are lgplv3/lgplv2.1
> e.g. the gcc bits in there are gplv3 with GCC Runtime Library Exception
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 12:22 +0200, Foinel wrote:
> Looking at gnutls-2.12.14/libextra/COPYING it says just GPLv3, so no
> dual licensing or exceptions of any kind for these extra libraries.
> Can anyone explain why in
> meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc it says:
> 
> # This is a list of packages that are used by the build system to
> build the distribution, they are not
> # directly part of the distribution..
> HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= ""
> WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "less"
> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc gcc-runtime"
> 
> Does this mean gnutls is some sort of a host tool?
> Because of this fact (gnutls being in LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3), then
> the restriction to avoid GPLv3 packages seems not applicable to
> gnutls. Does anyone know if gnutls is a special case in what concerns
> the licensing?

I think we were only including GPLv2 pieces of gnutls in most images. If
something is now pulling in the -extras package, we have a problem. It
sounds like we should remove it from the whitelist.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Foinel]

Hi, I think I've narrowed the problem down to wpa-supplicant.
If you look into wpa-supplicant-0.7.3/defconfig-gnutls you can see
there CONFIG_GNUTLS_EXTRA=y. Commenting out this CONFIG_GNUTLS_EXTRA=y
creates a build into which I do not have anymore the libraries from
the -extra rpm.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 12:22 +0200, Foinel wrote:
>> Looking at gnutls-2.12.14/libextra/COPYING it says just GPLv3, so no
>> dual licensing or exceptions of any kind for these extra libraries.
>> Can anyone explain why in
>> meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc it says:
>>
>> # This is a list of packages that are used by the build system to
>> build the distribution, they are not
>> # directly part of the distribution..
>> HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= ""
>> WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "less"
>> LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3 ?= "libassuan gnutls libtasn1 libidn libgcc gcc-runtime"
>>
>> Does this mean gnutls is some sort of a host tool?
>> Because of this fact (gnutls being in LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPLv3), then
>> the restriction to avoid GPLv3 packages seems not applicable to
>> gnutls. Does anyone know if gnutls is a special case in what concerns
>> the licensing?
>
> I think we were only including GPLv2 pieces of gnutls in most images. If
> something is now pulling in the -extras package, we have a problem. It
> sounds like we should remove it from the whitelist.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>

gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

Hello guys,

I've been plying along with yocto lately and managed to understand at a 
decent level it's work-flow and components.

Today wanted to complete an image-core-minimal for arm using packages 
that are not GPLv3 using (found in manual):
#EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES = "debug-tweaks"
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"

Further more i wanted to compile gnutls and i think that i came across a 
bug. In the bb file (poky/meta/recipes-support/gnutls/gnutls_2.12.14.bb) 
the rules for pakages are:
PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-openssl ${PN}-extra ${PN}-bin ${PN}-xx"

FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgnutls.so.*"
FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/gnutls-serv \
                    ${bindir}/gnutls-cli \
                    ${bindir}/srptool \
                    ${bindir}/psktool \
                    ${bindir}/p11tool \
                    ${bindir}/certtool \
                    ${bindir}/gnutls-srpcrypt"

FILES_${PN}-dev += "${bindir}/*-config ${bindir}/gnutls-cli-debug"
FILES_${PN}-extra = "${libdir}/libgnutls-extra.so.*"
FILES_${PN}-openssl = "${libdir}/libgnutls-openssl.so.*"
FILES_${PN}-xx = "${libdir}/libgnutlsxx.so.*"

So the rpms should be named gnutls-dev, gnutls-bin etc etc.
Well... this is not true cause in the 
tmp/work/armv5te-poky-linux-gnueabi/gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1/deploy-rpms 
directory i found:

drwxr-xr-x 2 agherzan agherzan    4096 2011-12-09 23:47 .
drwxrwxr-x 3 agherzan agherzan    4096 2011-12-09 23:46 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  306281 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls26-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  107347 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-bin-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan 1667211 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-dbg-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   63017 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-dev-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  799229 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-doc-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   17962 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-extra26-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12240 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-cs-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan    7992 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-de-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10241 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-en+boldquot-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10192 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-en+quot-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12095 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-fr-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11857 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-it-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10325 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-ms-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11858 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-nl-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11973 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-pl-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11773 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-sv-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12338 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-vi-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10521 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-locale-zh-cn-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   18005 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-openssl27-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan 1795460 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutls-staticdev-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   18524 2011-12-09 23:47 
libgnutlsxx27-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm

More infos: I'm using multithreading building and my last commit in poky 
is "commit af7fbd6083f4b5f1770e58fe0a2262951037c176."

I just cannot understand how these names are built. More, what are 
libgnutls-openssl27 and libgnutlsxx27?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Joshua Lock]

On 09/12/11 14:15, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> Hello guys,
> 
> I've been plying along with yocto lately and managed to understand at a
> decent level it's work-flow and components.
> 
> Today wanted to complete an image-core-minimal for arm using packages
> that are not GPLv3 using (found in manual):
> #EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES = "debug-tweaks"
> INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"
> 
> Further more i wanted to compile gnutls and i think that i came across a
> bug. In the bb file (poky/meta/recipes-support/gnutls/gnutls_2.12.14.bb)
> the rules for pakages are:
> PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-openssl ${PN}-extra ${PN}-bin ${PN}-xx"
> 
> FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgnutls.so.*"
> FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/gnutls-serv \
>                    ${bindir}/gnutls-cli \
>                    ${bindir}/srptool \
>                    ${bindir}/psktool \
>                    ${bindir}/p11tool \
>                    ${bindir}/certtool \
>                    ${bindir}/gnutls-srpcrypt"
> 
> FILES_${PN}-dev += "${bindir}/*-config ${bindir}/gnutls-cli-debug"
> FILES_${PN}-extra = "${libdir}/libgnutls-extra.so.*"
> FILES_${PN}-openssl = "${libdir}/libgnutls-openssl.so.*"
> FILES_${PN}-xx = "${libdir}/libgnutlsxx.so.*"
> 
> So the rpms should be named gnutls-dev, gnutls-bin etc etc.
> Well... this is not true cause in the
> tmp/work/armv5te-poky-linux-gnueabi/gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1/deploy-rpms
> directory i found:
> 
> drwxr-xr-x 2 agherzan agherzan    4096 2011-12-09 23:47 .
> drwxrwxr-x 3 agherzan agherzan    4096 2011-12-09 23:46 ..
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  306281 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls26-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  107347 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-bin-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan 1667211 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-dbg-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   63017 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-dev-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan  799229 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-doc-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   17962 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-extra26-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12240 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-cs-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan    7992 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-de-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10241 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-en+boldquot-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10192 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-en+quot-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12095 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-fr-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11857 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-it-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10325 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-ms-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11858 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-nl-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11973 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-pl-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   11773 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-sv-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   12338 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-vi-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   10521 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-locale-zh-cn-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   18005 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-openssl27-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan 1795460 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutls-staticdev-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- 1 agherzan agherzan   18524 2011-12-09 23:47
> libgnutlsxx27-2.12.14-r3.1.armv5te.rpm
> 
> More infos: I'm using multithreading building and my last commit in poky
> is "commit af7fbd6083f4b5f1770e58fe0a2262951037c176."
> 
> I just cannot understand how these names are built. More, what are
> libgnutls-openssl27 and libgnutlsxx27?

This looks like our debian-style package renaming, which renames
libraries to include the lib prefix.

We have a brief blurb about it here:
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#ref-classes-debian

Regards,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]


> This looks like our debian-style package renaming, which renames
> libraries to include the lib prefix.
>
> We have a brief blurb about it here:
> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#ref-classes-debian
>
> Regards,
> Joshua

Yes it looks like. But here is the problem: i included this pkg in 
IMAGE-INSTALL and i found library from -extra with even if
LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"

And i think that this could be because of this name style change.

-- 
*Andrei Gherzan*, Engineer
mobile +40.744.478.414  fax +40.031.816.28.12
Email: andrei@gherzan.ro
Email: andrei.gherzan@windriver.com
Romania

Acest e-mail reprezinta corespondenta pentru care dumneavoastra v-ati 
exprimat acordul si se supune politicii noastre de anti-spamming.
Daca totusi considerati ca acest email reprezinta spamming va rugam sa 
ne contactati folosind e-mail-ul info@gherzan.ro. Multumim.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2658 bytes --]

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Mark Hatle]

On 12/9/11 6:02 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>
>> This looks like our debian-style package renaming, which renames
>> libraries to include the lib prefix.
>>
>> We have a brief blurb about it here:
>> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#ref-classes-debian
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joshua
>
> Yes it looks like. But here is the problem: i included this pkg in IMAGE-INSTALL
> and i found library from -extra with even if
> LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"
>
> And i think that this could be because of this name style change.

There are two issues here.  The first is that IMAGE_INSTALL is the binary 
package name.  This name can be munged with the renaming as Joshua mentioned. 
Most people assume that this name matches the source recipe name.  So there is 
confusion to deal with.

The other issue is that any place a user is asked to list a -binary- package 
name, it should go through the same munging process as it does when things are 
generated.  The IMAGE_INSTALL does not do this at this time.  (It -really- 
should!)  This has been on my list of things to work on for a while now, but I 
have not had the time to get to it.

Patches are welcome!  ;)

--Mark

> --
> *Andrei Gherzan*, Engineer
> mobile +40.744.478.414 fax +40.031.816.28.12
> Email: andrei@gherzan.ro
> Email: andrei.gherzan@windriver.com
> Romania
>
> Acest e-mail reprezinta corespondenta pentru care dumneavoastra v-ati exprimat
> acordul si se supune politicii noastre de anti-spamming.
> Daca totusi considerati ca acest email reprezinta spamming va rugam sa ne
> contactati folosind e-mail-ul info@gherzan.ro. Multumim.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 22:08 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 12/9/11 6:02 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> >
> >> This looks like our debian-style package renaming, which renames
> >> libraries to include the lib prefix.
> >>
> >> We have a brief blurb about it here:
> >> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#ref-classes-debian
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Joshua
> >
> > Yes it looks like. But here is the problem: i included this pkg in IMAGE-INSTALL
> > and i found library from -extra with even if
> > LICENSE_${PN}-extra = "GPLv3+"
> >
> > And i think that this could be because of this name style change.
> 
> There are two issues here.  The first is that IMAGE_INSTALL is the binary 
> package name.  This name can be munged with the renaming as Joshua mentioned. 
> Most people assume that this name matches the source recipe name.  So there is 
> confusion to deal with.
> 
> The other issue is that any place a user is asked to list a -binary- package 
> name, it should go through the same munging process as it does when things are 
> generated.  The IMAGE_INSTALL does not do this at this time.  (It -really- 
> should!)  This has been on my list of things to work on for a while now, but I 
> have not had the time to get to it.
> 
> Patches are welcome!  ;)

To quote image.bbclass:

export PACKAGE_INSTALL ?= "${IMAGE_INSTALL} ${FEATURE_INSTALL}"

python () {
    # If we don't do this we try and run the mapping hooks while parsing which is slow
    # bitbake should really provide something to let us know this...
    if d.getVar('BB_WORKERCONTEXT', True) is not None:
        runtime_mapping_rename("PACKAGE_INSTALL", d)
        runtime_mapping_rename("PACKAGE_INSTALL_ATTEMPTONLY", d)
}

so as far as I know, the remapping does work.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

Bug added to bugzilla:

*Bug 1845* 
<http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845>-gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 
- GPLv3 license rpm present in a non-GPLv3 build(edit 
<http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/post_bug.cgi#>)

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Saul Wold]

On 12/19/2011 06:05 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> Bug added to bugzilla:
>
> *Bug 1845*
> <http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845>-gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1
> - GPLv3 license rpm present in a non-GPLv3 build(edit
> <http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/post_bug.cgi#>)

Any chance of getting you to provide the patch for this also? If so, I 
can assign this bug to you.

Thanks
	Sau!

> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

I can look over this as well but there would be a problem: i don't know 
what solution to choose. I can take this package out from WHITELIST, 
ican  make wpa_supplicant to compile with openssl and not with gnutls... 
i can compile wpa-supplicant without gnutls-extra and so on... What do 
you say?

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Saul Wold]

On 12/20/2011 03:09 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> I can look over this as well but there would be a problem: i don't know
> what solution to choose. I can take this package out from WHITELIST,
> ican make wpa_supplicant to compile with openssl and not with gnutls...
> i can compile wpa-supplicant without gnutls-extra and so on... What do
> you say?
I think it needs to stay in the WHITELIST for know, until we have some 
kind of future change that can determine package based LICENSE info and 
build accordingly (that's a different issue then this right now).

What does wpa-supplicant use from gnutls-extra?  What functionality 
could be lost?  This might be the best approach, and could be a 
conditional patch based on GPLv3 or not (see code in util-linux_2.19.1)

For WPA-supplicant and openssl, are there know issues?

Sau!

> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]

On 12/20/2011 08:18 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 03:09 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>> I can look over this as well but there would be a problem: i don't know
>> what solution to choose. I can take this package out from WHITELIST,
>> ican make wpa_supplicant to compile with openssl and not with gnutls...
>> i can compile wpa-supplicant without gnutls-extra and so on... What do
>> you say?
> I think it needs to stay in the WHITELIST for know, until we have some 
> kind of future change that can determine package based LICENSE info 
> and build accordingly (that's a different issue then this right now).
>
> What does wpa-supplicant use from gnutls-extra?  What functionality 
> could be lost?  This might be the best approach, and could be a 
> conditional patch based on GPLv3 or not (see code in util-linux_2.19.1)
>
> For WPA-supplicant and openssl, are there know issues?
>
> Sau!
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> poky mailing list
>> poky@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>>

Well things seem to be like this. wpa-supplicant has 3 ways of 
implementing TLS:
1. internal
2. openssl
3. gnutls + optional gnutls extra.

For internal there are only these features:
1. can be used in place of an external TLS/crypto library
2. TLSv1
3. X.509 certificate processing
4. PKCS #1
5. ASN.1
6. RSA
7. bignum
8. minimal size (ca. 50 kB binary, parts of which are already needed for 
WPA; TLSv1/X.509/ASN.1/RSA/bignum parts are about 25 kB on x86)

OpenSSL has a license problem (as i recall). It is not GPL compatible.

gnutls comes optionally with gnutls-extra. This rpm implements TLS/IA.

"The TLS/IA protocol was designed to be used in the EAP-TTLSv1
protocol, to perform user authentication of Wireless LAN network nodes
using IEEE 802.1x.  The TLS/IA and TTLSv1 protocols were published
through the IETF and descriptions"

My choice would be to eliminate this feature and build wpa-suplicant 
without gnutls-extra. In this way we have a solid TLS implementations, 
GPL compatible with a little compromise. Obviously, this would be only 
in a non-GPLv3 build.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3402 bytes --]

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Saul Wold]

On 12/20/2011 03:41 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 08:18 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 03:09 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>> I can look over this as well but there would be a problem: i don't know
>>> what solution to choose. I can take this package out from WHITELIST,
>>> ican make wpa_supplicant to compile with openssl and not with gnutls...
>>> i can compile wpa-supplicant without gnutls-extra and so on... What do
>>> you say?
>> I think it needs to stay in the WHITELIST for know, until we have some
>> kind of future change that can determine package based LICENSE info
>> and build accordingly (that's a different issue then this right now).
>>
>> What does wpa-supplicant use from gnutls-extra? What functionality
>> could be lost? This might be the best approach, and could be a
>> conditional patch based on GPLv3 or not (see code in util-linux_2.19.1)
>>
>> For WPA-supplicant and openssl, are there know issues?
>>
>> Sau!
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> poky mailing list
>>> poky@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>>>
>
> Well things seem to be like this. wpa-supplicant has 3 ways of
> implementing TLS:
> 1. internal
> 2. openssl
> 3. gnutls + optional gnutls extra.
>
> For internal there are only these features:
> 1. can be used in place of an external TLS/crypto library
> 2. TLSv1
> 3. X.509 certificate processing
> 4. PKCS #1
> 5. ASN.1
> 6. RSA
> 7. bignum
> 8. minimal size (ca. 50 kB binary, parts of which are already needed for
> WPA; TLSv1/X.509/ASN.1/RSA/bignum parts are about 25 kB on x86)
>
> OpenSSL has a license problem (as i recall). It is not GPL compatible.
>
> gnutls comes optionally with gnutls-extra. This rpm implements TLS/IA.
>
> "The TLS/IA protocol was designed to be used in the EAP-TTLSv1
> protocol, to perform user authentication of Wireless LAN network nodes
> using IEEE 802.1x. The TLS/IA and TTLSv1 protocols were published
> through the IETF and descriptions"
>
> My choice would be to eliminate this feature and build wpa-suplicant
> without gnutls-extra. In this way we have a solid TLS implementations,
> GPL compatible with a little compromise. Obviously, this would be only
> in a non-GPLv3 build.
That was also the direction I was leaning as you might have been able to 
tell, I just to be sure of the functionality lose.  Do you think it's 
possible to implement it as a conditional on the INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE 
having GPLv3?

Thanks again
	Sau!

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2831 bytes --]

Yes.  Absolutely. I will attach a patch to that bug today.
On Dec 21, 2011 7:55 AM, "Saul Wold" <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 12/20/2011 03:41 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2011 08:18 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2011 03:09 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can look over this as well but there would be a problem: i don't know
>>>> what solution to choose. I can take this package out from WHITELIST,
>>>> ican make wpa_supplicant to compile with openssl and not with gnutls...
>>>> i can compile wpa-supplicant without gnutls-extra and so on... What do
>>>> you say?
>>>>
>>> I think it needs to stay in the WHITELIST for know, until we have some
>>> kind of future change that can determine package based LICENSE info
>>> and build accordingly (that's a different issue then this right now).
>>>
>>> What does wpa-supplicant use from gnutls-extra? What functionality
>>> could be lost? This might be the best approach, and could be a
>>> conditional patch based on GPLv3 or not (see code in util-linux_2.19.1)
>>>
>>> For WPA-supplicant and openssl, are there know issues?
>>>
>>> Sau!
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>>> poky mailing list
>>>> poky@yoctoproject.org
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.**org/listinfo/poky<https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Well things seem to be like this. wpa-supplicant has 3 ways of
>> implementing TLS:
>> 1. internal
>> 2. openssl
>> 3. gnutls + optional gnutls extra.
>>
>> For internal there are only these features:
>> 1. can be used in place of an external TLS/crypto library
>> 2. TLSv1
>> 3. X.509 certificate processing
>> 4. PKCS #1
>> 5. ASN.1
>> 6. RSA
>> 7. bignum
>> 8. minimal size (ca. 50 kB binary, parts of which are already needed for
>> WPA; TLSv1/X.509/ASN.1/RSA/bignum parts are about 25 kB on x86)
>>
>> OpenSSL has a license problem (as i recall). It is not GPL compatible.
>>
>> gnutls comes optionally with gnutls-extra. This rpm implements TLS/IA.
>>
>> "The TLS/IA protocol was designed to be used in the EAP-TTLSv1
>> protocol, to perform user authentication of Wireless LAN network nodes
>> using IEEE 802.1x. The TLS/IA and TTLSv1 protocols were published
>> through the IETF and descriptions"
>>
>> My choice would be to eliminate this feature and build wpa-suplicant
>> without gnutls-extra. In this way we have a solid TLS implementations,
>> GPL compatible with a little compromise. Obviously, this would be only
>> in a non-GPLv3 build.
>>
> That was also the direction I was leaning as you might have been able to
> tell, I just to be sure of the functionality lose.  Do you think it's
> possible to implement it as a conditional on the INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE
> having GPLv3?
>
> Thanks again
>        Sau!
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3670 bytes --]

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 75 bytes --]

Bug attached to:

http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 424 bytes --]

Re: gnutls-2.12.14-r3.1 - strange rpm names yocto

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

Sorry for the typo.  I ment: "patch attached to".

On Dec 21, 2011 8:54 PM, "Andrei Gherzan" <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
>
> Bug attached to:
>
> http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 386 bytes --]