[OE-core] Consultation about the issue of archiver

[Paul Barker]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, at 08:21, zang wrote:
> hello:
> 
> Recently, when I enabled the archiver.bbclass, I found that some 
> packages could not generate the srpm package. The reason is that it 
> returned in the function copyleft_should_include() in the file 
> archiver.bbclass. 
> 
>  | included, reason = copyleft_should_include(d)
>  | if not included:
>  | bb.debug(1, 'archiver: %s is excluded: %s' % (pn, reason))
>  | /*return from here*/
>  | return 
>  | else:
>  | bb.debug(1, 'archiver: %s is included: %s' % (pn, reason)) 
> Why do you want to make a license judgment on the package?
>  I hope someone can answer it, thank you very much.
>  The following is my local.conf:
> 
> | ...
> | INHERIT += "archiver"
> | ARCHIVER_MODE[srpm] = "1"
> | ARCHIVER_MODE[src] = "original"
> | ...
> e.g. When I use the following 
> command,tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/openssl/1.1.1c-r0/deploy-sources/ 
> is empty.
> 
> | bitbake -f -c deploy_archives openssl 

The flexibility of the archiver class is a real advantage, you just need to configure it via the variables used by the copyleft_filter class. To capture everything except 'CLOSED' and 'Proprietary' recipes I have the following set:

    COPYLEFT_LICENSE_INCLUDE = "*"

Give that a try and let me know if it works for you.

Thanks,

-- 
Paul Barker
Managing Director & Principal Engineer
Beta Five Ltd