[libcamera-devel] [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH] package/libcamera: Add libcamera package

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Arnout,

Thank you for your review too :)

On 19/03/2019 23:18, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/03/2019 15:12, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> Hi Yann,
>>
>> Thank you for the review,
>>
>> On 19/03/2019 12:50, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>> Kieran, All,
>>>
>>> On 2019-03-19 11:03 +0000, Kieran Bingham spake thusly:
> 
> [snip]
>>>> +LIBCAMERA_SITE_METHOD = git
>>>> +LIBCAMERA_DEPENDENCIES = udev
> 
>  Since this is a library, I'd expect _INSTALL_STAGING = YES.

Great, I'll add this.

>>>> +LIBCAMERA_LICENSE = LGPL-2.0+
>>>
>>> This is not LGPL-2.0+, but LGPL-2.1+
>>
>> Ugh, I should have remembered that, especially as I added the licenses...
>>
>>>
>>> There are actually 2 other licenses applicable to this package: GPLv2.0+
>>> and CC-BY-SA-4.0 (or later?).
>>>
>>> We usually specify what part of the package they apply to (correct me
>>> if/where I am wrong):
>>>
>>>     LIBCAMERA_LICENSE = LGPL-2.1+ (library), GPL-2.0+ (utils, test), CC-By_SA-4.0 (doc)
> 
>  AFAIU, we only specify licenses of stuff installed on target. Since
> /usr/share/doc gets removed in target-finalize, the doc license should not be
> relevant.

Ok, so should I just remove the CC licence?


>  BTW it would be nice if there was a meson option to disable building docs. I
> don't know how it is for the libcamera doc, but doxygen and sphinx are sometimes
> a bit slow.


I agree, - the docs won't build if sphinx /doxygen isn't found - but
when I built on my laptop in buildroot, it 'discovered' the exectuable
for sphinx, but without an install inside the buildroot environment so
it failed at first.

So a --disable-docs option is certainly going to be useful. I'll try and
get it added and included for this packaging process.


>>
>>
>> That looks accurate to me.
>>
>> I've updated the patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Please also specify the files that contain the license texts:
>>>
>>>     LIBCAMERA_LICENSE_FILES = \
>>>         licenses/cc-by-sa-v4.0.txt \
>>>         licenses/developer-certificate-of-origin.txt \
>>>         licenses/gnu-gpl-2.0.txt \
>>>         licenses/gnu-lgpl-2.1.txt
> 
>  Please also add hashes for these files.

Ack ...

Are all of these relevant actually? I wonder if I should drop the
cc-by-sa-v4.0 if I'm dropping the docs licence above, and the DCO, as
that's only really about contributing to the project?

--
Kieran



> 
>  Thanks!
> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran