On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 07:02:43PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 18:27, Quentin Schulz > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Hi all, > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > > Is it possible to further split the NONCOMMERCIAL_PACKAGECONFIGS into ones > > > that are enabled and disabled, and use the former in PACKAGECONFIG itself? > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:38, Yann Dirson <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Yann Dirson <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > The rationale here is that if the user can only whitelist "commercial" > > > > to use any part of ffmpeg, even it the list of features is carefully > > > > reviewed when switching the whitelisting on, there was nothing to > > > > guard from inadvertently activating a new feature that would not have > > > > been reviewed. > > > > > > > > This patch adds one LICENSE_FLAGS value for each feature, except for > > > > those that bring no codec, trying to be on the same level of legal > > > > safety - but then I may miss something. > > > > > > > > I tried to leave out of the safe NONCOMMERCIAL_PACKAGECONFIGS list > > > > anything that brings a codec, notably libavcodec. I also did not look > > > > at non-default features yet. > > > > > > > > There may still be a problem if any feature in ffmpeg gets activated > > > > by default upstream and not registed as a PACKAGECONFIG feature. At > > > > least any of those that depend on another lib would not be enabled, > > > > that could be seen as a sufficient safeguard. > > > > --- > > > > meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.3.2.bb | 12 +++++++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.3.2.bb > > > > b/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.3.2.bb > > > > index 08be38ca50..3a36c95151 100644 > > > > --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.3.2.bb > > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/ffmpeg/ffmpeg_4.3.2.bb > > > > @@ -16,7 +16,17 @@ LICENSE_libavutil = > > > > "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'gpl', 'GPLv2+', 'LGP > > > > LICENSE_libpostproc = "GPLv2+" > > > > LICENSE_libswresample = "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'gpl', > > > > 'GPLv2+', 'LGPLv2.1+', d)}" > > > > LICENSE_libswscale = "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'gpl', > > > > 'GPLv2+', 'LGPLv2.1+', d)}" > > > > -LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" > > > > + > > > > +# PACKAGECONFIG features that do not pull codecs > > > > +NONCOMMERCIAL_PACKAGECONFIGS = " \ > > > > + alsa bzlib drm gpl lzma zlib xcb xv \ > > > > + avdevice avfilter avformat swresample swscale postproc avresample \ > > > > +" > > > > +# An ffmpeg feature not in NONCOMMERCIAL_PACKAGECONFIGS should be > > > > explicitly whitelisted. > > > > +# See https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html > > > > +LICENSE_FLAGS = "${@' '.join('commercial_' + cfg \ > > > > + for cfg in '${PACKAGECONFIG}'.split() \ > > > > I would at least make it commercial_ffmpeg- + cfg. To make it obvious > > that it belongs to ffmpeg recipe/packages. > > Makes sense. > > > > > I guess it breaks backward compatibility, which IMO is fine unless there > > is a possibility someone who blacklisted this commercial license in some > > way now has it enabled. I don't know enough about the inner workings of > > LICENSE_FLAGS so cannot say if this is covered or not. > > You mean, that "commercial" would be whitelisted globally, but then > something would > exclude ffmpeg from that whitelist ? I'm not aware of a way to do that. >
That was exactly what I meant. No idea either if such a mechanism exists. Cheers, Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#149839): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/149839 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/81555357/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
