On 6/16/17 6:14 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 09:12 +0000, Thomas Thorne wrote:
>>>> Is it only possible to use the special
>>>> LICENSE = "CLOSED"
>>>> license for licenses not already placed in the main license
>> directory?
>>>
>>> Yes, there's special-case logic for 'CLOSED'. Can you not just use
>> that for your internal pieces? It's special-cased in a few places.
>>
>> I can use CLOSED. I just wanted to ensure I was following the
>> recommended or best practice.
>>
>> As this is an internal thing it should be OK for now. I was
>> wondering what would happen if a closed licenses was updated, as
>> nothing would currently note the md5 change.
>
> FWIW: We created a proprietary license file called files/common-
> licenses/company.txt in our proprietary layer, then added the following
> to layer.conf:
>
> COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES := '${@os.path.normpath("${LAYERDIR}/files/com
> mon-licenses")}'
> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST_append = " COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES"
>
> Then a recipe can get the "standard" proprietary license by doing:
>
> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> "file://${COMPANY_COMMON_LICENSES}/company.txt;md5=9b1139fa1fcb869069db
> eecca44350a5"
>
> It works pretty well and also make it clear what license the recipe is
> under. I believe that the BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST was necessary at the
> time to prevent changes in the project working path from causing a full
> rebuild of the all proprietary packages and so that the sstate
> signatures would match regardless, but I might be wrong about it being
> necessary.is this still the case with latest master ?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
