[OE-core] [PATCH] default-distrovars.inc: drop obsolete LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPL-3.0

[Andre McCurdy]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/18 7:02 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>> There doesn't seem to be a clear reason to have two separate
>> variables to hold whitelisted GPLv3 recipes. Both variables are
>> treated the same, so adding a recipe to LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPL-3.0 is
>> already equivalent to adding it to WHITELIST_GPL-3.0.
>>
>> Anyone needing to whitelist a GPLv3 recipe should now just use
>> WHITELIST_GPL-3.0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy at gmail.com>
>> ---
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> index 76d09af..2f46e13 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ DISTRO_FEATURES ?= "${DISTRO_FEATURES_DEFAULT} ${DISTRO_FEATURES_LIBC}"
>>  IMAGE_FEATURES ?= ""
>>
>>  WHITELIST_GPL-3.0 ?= ""
>> -LGPLv2_WHITELIST_GPL-3.0 ?= ""
>
> I don't have enough context to know if this matters, but there are a number of
> GPLv3 tools, that have LGPLv2 libraries.  I believe this whitelist was added to
> specifically allow this these items to be present on the system, as it was a
> distinctly different use-case then just the GPL-3.0 version.
>
> (Not sure how relevant that still is.  Is there any documentation in either the
> documentation.conf or guide?)

That used to be relevant a while ago when LICENSE was applied to all
packages created by the recipe. Nowadays, LICENSE can be defined on a
per-package basis, so the case where a recipe builds (for example) an
LPGLv2 library and a GPLv3 demo app and an image in a GPLv3-free
distro needs to include only the library is handled fine without any
whitelisting. The cairo and gnutls recipes are examples of that in
oe-core.