[PATCH] D38298: A logic to copy LLVM licences into docker images.

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-commits]

2017-09-28 11:02 GMT-07:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-28 10:37 GMT-07:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-09-28 8:48 GMT-07:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Where would license files go on a make install?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "$CLANG_INSTALL_DIR/share/llvm/licenses"? Eventually make the path
>>>>>> it an option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> At least in linux land, most distros have places they expect licenses
>>>>> to go, and it's often part of the packaging format itself.
>>>>> For example, debian expects copyright notices to be part of packaging,
>>>>> not installed by the package.
>>>>> (IE what the patch originally does).
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, it expects it to be a machine parseable format in
>>>>> debian/copyright in the .deb package file.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is in turn, parsed and a formatted version put in the right place
>>>>> in the distro.
>>>>> They do *not* want packages installing them themselves, AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>> While i understand why you think this logic should be common, IMHO, it
>>>>> shouldn't be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every single packaging/etc system has a different format, set of
>>>>> rules, etc for what should be happening here.
>>>>> There is no real common logic you can extract from this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are going to write logic for rpms, debian, docker, etc anyway
>>>>> right now, to put the bits in the formats and places the distros want them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish it wasn't the case, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is there is an apparent need to have in tree:
>>>>
>>>> 1) a way to collect the list of licenses files that needs to be
>>>> distributed with LLVM.
>>>> 2) a way to package them with a LLVM binary distribution.
>>>> 3) duplicating this in tree seems bad and not maintainable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, but if every single packaging format wants #1 and #2 in
>>> different formats and containing different things, how do you expect to
>>> build any common functionality here?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And considering that we haven't even be able to comply with our own
>>>> distribution (!!) on llvm.org, providing it in the most common unit
>>>> seems the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> My assessment right now is that I don't see any drawback to provide
>>>> this *option* in LLVM and use the CMake option from docker, but on the
>>>> opposite I see benefits to do it (the LLVM release scripts can be updated
>>>> to use it right now).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, i see no real benefit if every packaging has to turn it off
>>> and do something on their own anyway :)
>>>
>>>
>> I mentioned *two* in-tree packaging that would do the same thing (the
>> LLVM release scripts and the Docker scripts. Two is the right number to
>> factor things isn't it? ;)
>>
>>
> The docker format used here will change shortly (IE in the next few
> months), and look nothing like something that makes sense for the release
> scripts.
>

Good to hear, but I don't know what you're referring to, was there a
discussion on LLVM-dev I missed on this topic?

I don't have a view of your big plan around this, but maybe you can answer
this:

1) Should the packages on llvm.org include the license?

2) If the answer is yes, then when the "Docker format" changes to something
totally different and this logic to copy the license files dies. We still
should address the packages on llvm.org right? In which case refactoring it
*now* does not seem to cost much effort but provide the long term benefit
that when you stop using it from the Docker scripts it won't be lost and
can be used for the LLVM releases packages.

If you say no to 1), none of my points in this thread make sense and we can
move on :) Hope this makes sense?

-- 
Mehdi





> (It's what i came up with internally).
>
> In any case, it's clear you think there is some value here.
>
> I'm just going to say:  I did this for many thousands of packages for tens
> of distros for 10+ years.
> IMHO, there isn't value here until it standardizes more, and that will
> take many eons.
>

> If you want to force someone to do it anyway, okay. I have no desire to
> die on this hill, i just think it's a waste of time to climb it.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170928/32be1f2f/attachment.html>