10251 2016-09-09 06:46:30 +0000 linux-firmware packages include licenses from all firmware packages 2016-09-23 03:37:32 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core deployment 2.2 All Multiple RESOLVED FIXED Medium normal 2.2 M4 1 net147 sgw anibal.limon bluelightning ross.burton sgw --- --- No (bug/feature does not impact docs) oldest_to_newest 65971 0 net147 2016-09-09 06:46:30 +0000 1. local.conf contains: COPY_LIC_MANIFEST = "1" COPY_LIC_DIRS = "1" 2. linux-firmware-ralink is added to image 3. If you check /usr/share/common-licenses/linux-firmware-ralink, it has licenses for all the firmware packages. license.manifest shows "LICENSE: Firmware-ralink-firmware" for the linux-firmware-ralink package 4. If you check /usr/share/common-licenses/linux-firmware-ralink-license, it has licenses for all the firmware packages. license.manifest shows "LICENSE: Firmware-Abilis & [...] & Firmware-xc5000c & WHENCE". So we need to do the following: * License for each linux-firmware-*-license package should be set correctly * Copy only the licenses for a package to the package's licenses directory and not the licenses for the recipe (which will have the licenses of all the packages) 66235 1 sgw 2016-09-16 02:45:24 +0000 Seems that the linux-firmware base package has an RDEPENDS on the generic linux-firmware-license package which includes all the licenses. Still digging 66453 2 sgw 2016-09-22 02:54:43 +0000 http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=77a9472a4b4ff2daa9171eaae9ee10f1f8527a0d 66468 3 net147 2016-09-22 08:20:28 +0000 Not completely fixed. The licenses directory still has licenses for all the firmware packages in: * /usr/share/common-licenses * /usr/share/common-licenses/linux-firmware-ralink * /usr/share/common-licenses/linux-firmware-ralink-license 66535 4 sgw 2016-09-23 00:02:32 +0000 Ok, so a little more research, the Manifest is generated on way based on the actual packages installed on the target rootfs. The License Directory is copied from the licenses provided by the recipe (so not on a package basis), to change this would require a pretty good re-write in the license.bbclass. THis actually affects all packages that might have multiple licenses, but only ship limited licneses in each package. Unless this is really urgent, I am going to close this one and will re-open a more general bug against license.bbclass 66537 5 sgw 2016-09-23 03:37:32 +0000 So we have fixed part of the problem that pertains to linux-firwmare license packages having the incorrect licenses. There is an problem that is generic to all packages that copies the working set of licenses to the target image based on the recipe's licenses vs the actual installed packages. A new bug#10325 has been created to address this in 2.3