On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:26:55PM +0100, Roland Hieber wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:17:26PM +0100, Roland Hieber wrote: > > Only readelf and objdump are installed to the target, but they are > > statically linked to the bundled zlib, libbfd, libctf, libiberty, and > > libopcodes, which don't have the same licenses. Try a divide-and-conquer > > strategy here to keep the clarity. > > > > libiberty includes an "unknown" portion in libiberty/xatexit.c, which > > only carries the following lines: > > > > | /* > > | * Copyright (c) 1990 Regents of the University of California. > > | * All rights reserved. > > | * > > | * %sccs.include.redist.c% > > | */ > > > > Reported-by: Felicitas Jung <f.j...@pengutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <r...@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > PATCH v3: > > - unravel the sub-libs into clearly arranged license statements > > - this is the last patch that remained open from the original PULL v1. > > > > PATCH v2: > > https://lore.ptxdist.org/ptxdist/20211205004208.2306245-13-...@pengutronix.de > > - use "custom-exception" instead of "unknown" > > - rebase to current master, review and adapt MD5 sums accordingly > > > > PULL v1: > > https://lore.ptxdist.org/ptxdist/20200527112204.ll7ij44ahllid...@pengutronix.de > > --- > > rules/binutils.make | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/rules/binutils.make b/rules/binutils.make > > index 20bb5d60f700..aed4d9226b35 100644 > > --- a/rules/binutils.make > > +++ b/rules/binutils.make > > @@ -23,6 +23,62 @@ BINUTILS_URL := $(call ptx/mirror, GNU, > > binutils/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX) > > BINUTILS_SOURCE := $(SRCDIR)/$(BINUTILS).$(BINUTILS_SUFFIX) > > BINUTILS_DIR := $(BUILDDIR)/$(BINUTILS) > > Oh my. I just discovered that the binutils version depends on the > toolchain version too, so this patch only works cleanly with > OSELAS.Toolchain 2022.10.0 which brings us binutils 2.39 … > > So I guess we need to find a similar versioning strategy for the license > variables, as with the kernel package.
I think, something like what we do for glibc would make sense: Provide a file to include with the toolchain for the simple case. For toolchains that don't have it yet, I think a rules/binutils.license.make is needed in the BSP. Michael -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
