[oe] Yocto Project and OE - Where now?

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2011/1/19 Joshua Lock <josh at linux.intel.com>:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 10:12 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2011/1/19 Graeme Gregory <dp at 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?

That works for gpl v2 vs v3, but if there are other reasons to keep an
old recipe (e.g. footprint) it would also be nice to record it one way
or another.
>
> 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.

I assume so

Frans