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

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Arnout,

On 20/03/2019 09:34, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2019 10:25, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> 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?
> 
>  Indeed.
> 
>>>  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.
> 
>  --disable-docs? Coming from autotools, are you? :-P

Yes, I've been around way too long already :D


>  While you're at it, maybe you can add a disable for the tests as well (then you
> don't need to mention them in the licenses either).

That sounds reasonable.


>>>> 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?
> 
>  Correct, only the two gpls should be relevant. For complicated license
> situations a README that explains what applies to what would also be relevant,
> but in this case it's not needed IMO.


Great, that simplifies things.

--
Kieran