On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 08:32 -0600, Jason Wessel wrote: > +++ b/meta/files/common-licenses/unfs3 > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ > +UNFS3 user-space NFSv3 server > +(C) 2003, Pascal Schmidt <unfs3-ser...@ewetel.net> > + > +Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > +modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: > + > +1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, > + this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > +2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, > + this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation > + and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > +3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products > + derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Isn't this just the 3-clause BSD licence? >--- /dev/null >+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/unfs3/unfs3/alternate_rpc_ports.patch >@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ >+Add ability to specify rcp port numbers >+ >+In order to run more than one unfs server on a host system, you must >+be able to specify alternate rpc port numbers. >+ >+Jason Wessel <jason.wes...@windriver.com> >+ >+Upstream-Status: Pending I think you said in the cover letter that the patches had been sent upstream. If that's the case then it should be Upstream-Status: Submitted. >+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "pseudo" >+RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-native = "pseudo-native" >+RDEPENDS_${PN}_class-nativesdk = "pseudo-nativesdk" That looks a bit odd. Are the latter two lines doing anything very useful? >+# This recipe is intended for -native and -nativesdk builds only, >+# not target installs: Why? If this is really the case, shouldn't it be named unfs3-native in the first place? p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core