1 |
Ed W wrote: |
2 |
>>> Whilst I guess it should be possible to tear apart catalyst and find out |
3 |
>>> how they do it, does anyone happen to know or have a heads up on the code |
4 |
>>> for catalyst? |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> The catalyst code has no part in this, but it takes a portage snapshot |
7 |
>> as one of it's inputs, and if you maintain a custom snapshot (with |
8 |
>> only packages you need) then you know what gets used. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> But not all the patches are in the portage tree? Trivial example might |
11 |
> be the kernel where the ebuild is tiny and references an http location |
12 |
> for the patches? |
13 |
|
14 |
Then you would change the kernel ebuild in your snapshot, so that it |
15 |
becomes self-contained. |
16 |
|
17 |
For the specific example of the kernel you could of course just pick |
18 |
vanilla-sources, but the issue is real. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
> My understanding is that for a GPL licence one should provide a |
22 |
> copy of these patches in the "code dump", not just an http link? |
23 |
> Is that your understanding? |
24 |
|
25 |
I think your understanding is incomplete, and I recommend that you |
26 |
read through the license again. |
27 |
|
28 |
There isn't just a single way to provide the source, but yes, if you |
29 |
have downloaded and included a patch in your binary, then you have to |
30 |
provide that patch yourself, because if you refer to someone else and |
31 |
they stop providing the patch you would no longer be in compliance. |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
> So by implication it's not clear that catalyst does satisfy your GPL |
35 |
> requirements for distribution? |
36 |
|
37 |
I never say it did. I said that it helps with some things. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> I suspect something more is probably happening, eg some of the linked |
41 |
> patches probably get included into the source download location and |
42 |
> probably you can pick them up there - however, there are now a LOT of |
43 |
> ways to fetching source and patches and it would be hard to be sure |
44 |
> of 100% coverage? |
45 |
|
46 |
Fourth time: Add bookkeeping into the epatch function. |
47 |
|
48 |
Downloading is irrelevant, especially since sometimes many more |
49 |
patches are downloaded than are actually applied. |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
> Has someone done some actual probing on this? Peter what does catalyst |
53 |
> provide for say gcc/kernel sources in it's source output? All the patches? |
54 |
|
55 |
It's the other way around: |
56 |
|
57 |
You provide a snapshot to catalyst, and catalyst builds kernel from |
58 |
that. You say what you want catalyst to build, and you create the |
59 |
package. |
60 |
|
61 |
You may end up doing more ebuild maintenance, but you likely want to |
62 |
do just that anyway, in order to keep track of what actually goes |
63 |
into your system. |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
//Peter |