Bug#946959: RFS: coreboot/4.10-1 [ITP] -- Coreboot firmware utilities
Hi John,
The package is in great shape. The only challenge to getting the
package in
the archive seems to be the copyright file. Coreboot's README says
Some files are licensed under the "GPL (version 2, or any later
version)",
and some files are licensed under the "GPL, version 2". For some parts,
which were derived from other projects, other (GPL-compatible) licenses
may
apply. Please check the individual source files for details.
That'll be a pain to do but yes.
debian/copyright says most files are GPL 2+, but it my digging
indicates the
majority are GPL 2 only, and I think I saw additional licenses too.
I see, more work.
I believe upstream has recently expressed desire to make listings files
with
respective licenses and/or using SPDX identifiers, rather than their
lengthy
headers in the source. If that's true, checking out the Git version
might help
you parse the licenses.
I heard about that in #coreboot irc channel.
Speaking of which, you repacked Coreboot with the contents of 3rdparty/
removed. As a Libreboot user I thought I understood why, but as best as
I can
tell those files are free. On Coreboot's downloads page they appear to
distribute the blobs separately which is news to me.
Partly removed, half re-added for util/cbfstool to build.
If there really is a problem with those files I would appreciate your
letting
me know what I missed. Otherwise I hope you can avoid the repacking
trouble in
the future.
Probably not, but the repacking is not trouble.
Lastly, a small enhancement is to add a debian/watch file so that tools
can
check for and utilize new upstream versions automagically. I plan to
send a
Salsa merge request with details shortly.
You can save you that pain. I already stole your watch file, now it
says:
E: coreboot source: debian-watch-file-pubkey-file-is-missing
I hope my feedback is useful for you to help your package.
Yes appreciated, thank you.
BTW, my latest work is here:
http://phd-sid.ethz.ch/debian/coreboot/
the 4.11 one.
Reply to: