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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core