Explain that the LICENSE set in a recipe does not apply to the recipe
file itself, but to the underlying software. The license of the recipe
file is the license provided in the layer itself. Give OpenEmbedded-Core
as an example for this.
Fixes [YOCTO #14410]
(From yocto-docs rev: 9d586f22b04528a12e71ee4fa794d8130320515b)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
(cherry picked from commit b8a56b8b2e8c0417b2f7204f80c79b05d95e9ce4)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
The variable SRCPV is deprecated since 4.3. Instead of including SRCPV
in PV, including the sign "+" is enough for bitbake to add the source
control information to PKGV during the packaging phase.
Update the documentation for SRCPV and the places where it was used.
When instructions previously referred to SRCPV, replace by mentioning to
include "+" in the assignment.
In most examples, "+git" is added to PV as it is the most popular SCM.
Simply adding "+" is also possible, although it is better practice to
include the SCM name, so give that example.
Update the gcompat example with l3afpad as it didn't include "+git" in
its PV definition anymore.
(From yocto-docs rev: ef4d259842d9b1dd2d08ee38e00f932852f70543)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
(cherry picked from commit ee16c96202e5027d1a8d7e89e11c25f127c78326)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
Newer versions of Sphinx already define a :cve: role that points to
cve.org, instead of the role we defined in conf.py that points to
nvd.nist.gov.
Rename our role to :cve_nist: to avoid warnings (treated as errors).
This is also backwards compatible, meaning we can build the doc with an
older Sphinx if needed.
The file were automatically replaced with following command:
find . -name '*.rst' -exec sed -i 's/:cve:/:cve_nist:/g' {} \+
Cherry pick:
* remove changes to release-notes-5.1.rst, does not exist on this branch.
* release-notes-5.0.4.rst: apply the command to this file as it was
treated previously.
Suggested-By: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
(From yocto-docs rev: 5b86879b3b5f3c51bc7fa5dd2848cf1153a22242)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
(cherry picked from commit 15fa3b7e85dde50d7236c1738ad607531cc654b8)
Signed-off-by: Antonin Godard <antonin.godard@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
This is in accordance with the gatesgarth Release Notes:
> In the ``Upstream-Status`` header convention for patches,
> ``Accepted`` has | been replaced with ``Backport`` as these almost
> always mean the same thing i.e. the patch is already upstream and
> may need to be removed in a future recipe upgrade. If you are adding
> these headers to your own patches then use Backport to indicate that
> the patch has been sent upstream.
<https://docs.yoctoproject.org/migration-guides/migration-3.2.html#miscellaneous-changes>
Suggested-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
(From yocto-docs rev: 61813da94595a6e57c5fb5015229d601a558f299)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
It was never really clear what all those reasons really meant, and every
patch submitted upstream liftens the maintenance on the Yocto side.
So remove the current list, and replace it with two reasons in which an
upstream submission likely won't benefit the upstream project.
Suggested-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>
(From yocto-docs rev: 7e630fdb98e1a28abb09c8f24c90ada0a4a1b9f3)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
This was previously included in the OpenEmbedded wiki page [1], but was
not ported along with the rest in commit 95c9a1e1e78bbfb82ade
(2023-09-12, Michael Opdenacker: "contributor-guide: recipe-style-guide:
add Upstream-Status").
[1]: https://www.openembedded.org/index.php?title=Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines&oldid=10935
Group the examples in their own sections (but name it differently from
any other section in this document so that sphinx doesn't generate a
warning about duplicate labels).
(From yocto-docs rev: 3022caa35efc28d16dea81bc81ecb48998c8f3b8)
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Whilst often referred to as packages by people we should use the more
accurate term in documentation, 'recipe' instead of 'packages'.
(From yocto-docs rev: 058de5ad48ab76c4d54391f1701c3082842e8794)
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
They were coming from obsolete notes from the times
when people directly created or modified .pc files
from their recipes. Nobody should be doing that
any more and keep this can be confusing.
(From yocto-docs rev: 6b3bbf9507ac7014e95926d69383b585c5e19371)
Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
