[Buildroot] [PATCH v2] package/forge: new package

[Johan Oudinet]

Yann, Thomas, All,

On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 10:35 AM Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
> On 2022-08-28 10:06 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> > On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 10:47:32 +0200
> > "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr> wrote:
> [--SNIP--]
> > > > +define FORGE_BUILD_CMDS
> > > > + cd $(@D) && $(NPM) install && $(NPM) run build
> [--SNIP--]
> > And side questions are:
> >  - Does this $(NPM) install step downloads stuff? If it does, then it's
> >    wrong, because it works around Buildroot's download infrastructure.
>
> Yes, as far as I understand, that's where the vendoring step happens.
> Unless we have a download post-process step like we have for go and
> cargo, there is not much we can do about that. See also my further reply
> on the previous iteration [0].
>
> Also that install-then-build sequence seems to be canon, see [1].
>
> But before we introduce either a download prost-process and/or an
> npm-package infrastructure, it would be better [2] to have more than
> two data-points.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20220826210712.GE37358@scaer/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/buildroot/20220827093603.GT37358@scaer/
> [2] I said "better", not "nice", on purpose. ;-]

This is exactly that.

> >  - Does this $(NPM) install step installs extra stuff? If it does, are
> >    these extra things accounted for from a legal information
> >    perspective?
>
> Yeah, it does install the vendored stuff. And of course it is not
> accounted for, what did you hope? ;-)
>
> So, yes, FORGE_LICENSE should include something like:
>
>     , vendored dependencies licenses probably not listed
>

Ok, do I propose a v3 with the suggested sentence to FORGE_LICENSE or
should I do something else?
-- 
Johan