[Buildroot] [PATCH] shadowsocks-libev: new package

[xu min]

Thank you so much for your help. I'm very exciting today that my first
contribution finally being accepted. And I realize there're still a lot of
things to learn.

Thank you.
MinXu

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:07 PM Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:

>
>
> On 04-06-18 18:00, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Min, Thomas, All,
> >
> > On 2018-06-04 12:09 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> >> On Mon,  4 Jun 2018 00:16:26 -0700, Min Xu wrote:
> > [--SNIP--]
> >>> diff --git
> a/package/shadowsocks-libev/0001-docs-add-BSD-3-Clause-licence.patch
> b/package/shadowsocks-libev/0001-docs-add-BSD-3-Clause-licence.patch
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..64dda02
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++
> b/package/shadowsocks-libev/0001-docs-add-BSD-3-Clause-licence.patch
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> >>> +From 0047295445c499e010706598c50f1bff8b0d632c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> +From: Min Xu <xuminready at gmail.com>
> >>> +Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:16:12 -0700
> >>> +Subject: [PATCH] docs: add BSD-3-Clause licence
> >>> +
> >>> +add missing licence for shadowsocks-libev/libipset
> >>> +
> >>> +Signed-off-by: Min Xu <xuminready at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> I'm still not entirely convinced by a patch adding a license file. It
> >> would definitely be useful to convince upstream to add this license
> >> file, but I'm not sure we want to carry patches in Buildroot adding
> >> license files.
> >>
> >> Peter, Arnout, Yann, any comment on this ?
> >
> > I agree with Thomas here: do not add a license file ourselves (unless we
> > backport an upstream commit, in which case the patch should say so).
>
>  This is actually the situation here. However, since the license file is
> identical to the existing one in the libcork directory, it's not so
> important IMO.
>
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
>
> >
> > If the package does not have a license file, then just include a source
> > file, preferrably a prominent one like main.c or whatever.
> >
> > And above all, better no information that bad information. So, don;t add
> > the license file.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann E. MORIN.
> >
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_VERSION = 3.2.0
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_SITE =
> https://github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks-libev/releases/download/v$(SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_VERSION)
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_LICENSE = GPL-3.0+, BSD-2-Clause(libbloom),
> BSD-3-Clause(libcork, libipset)
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING libbloom/LICENSE
> libcork/COPYING libipset/LICENSE.txt
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_DEPENDENCIES = host-pkgconf c-ares libev libsodium
> mbedtls pcre
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
> >>> +SHADOWSOCKS_LIBEV_CONF_OPTS = --disable-documentation
> --with-pcre=$(STAGING_DIR)/usr
> >>
> >> --disable-documentation is already passed by the autotools-package
> >> infrastructure, so it isn't needed.
> >>
> >> Besides those minor issues, the rest looks good to me. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >> --
> >> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
> >> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> >> https://bootlin.com
> >
>
> --
> Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
> Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
> Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
> G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
> LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
> GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
>


-- 

*Best Regards*

*XuMin's Ready！*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20180604/4cd0b52b/attachment-0002.html>