Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] acpi/tests/bits: add python test that exercizes QEMU bios tables using biosbits

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:37:39PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK fine. Lets figuire out how to push bits somewhere in git.qemu.org and
> > > > > > > the binaries in some other repo first. Everything else hinges on that. We
> > > > > > > can fix the rest of the bits later incrementally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DanPB, any thoughts on putting bits on git.qemu.org or where and how to
> > > > > > keep the binaries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we please conclude on this?
> > > > > Peter, can you please fork the repo? I have tried many times to reach
> > > > > you on IRC but failed.
> > > >
> > > > Probably because of travel around KVM forum.
> > > >
> > > > I think given our CI is under pressure again due to gitlab free tier
> > > > limits, tying binaries to CI isn't a great idea at this stage.
> > > > Can Ani just upload binaies to qemu.org for now?
> > >
> > > I agree with Michael here. Having a full ci/cd job for this is
> > > overkill IMHO. We should create a repo just for the binaries, have a
> > > README there to explain how we generate them and check in new versions
> > > as and when needed (it won't be frequent).
> > > How about biosbits-bin repo?
> >
> > If QEMU is hosting binaries, where any part contains GPL code, then we
> > need to be providing the full and corresponding source and the build
> > scripts needed to re-create the binary. Once we have such scripts it
> > should be trivial to trigger that from a CI job. If it isn't then
> > we're doing something wrong.
> 
> I was thinking of commiting the build scripts in a branch of
> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/biosbits-bits.
> This would separate them from the main source. The scripts would build
> a version of qemu-bits based on the version information passed to it
> from the environment.
> Before I committed the scripts, I wanted to check whether we would
> want to do that or have a separate repo containing the binaries and
> the build scripts.
> Seems we want the former.

A separate repo is standard imho. Don't see any advantages to
abusing git branches like that.

> As for the gitlab-ci, I looked at the yaml file and the qemu ones
> looks quite complicated. Can someone help me generate one based on the
> build script here?
> https://github.com/ani-sinha/bits/blob/bits-qemu-logging/build-artifacts.sh
> 
> > The CI quota is not an issue, because
> > this is not a job that we need to run continuously. It can be triggered
> > manually as & when we decide we need to refresh the binary, so would
> > be a small one-off CI quota hit.
> >
> > Also note that gitlab is intending to start enforcing storage quota
> > on projects in the not too distant future. This makes it unappealing
> > to store binaries in git repos, unless we genuinely need the ability
> > to access historical versions of the binary. I don't believe we need
> > that for biosbits.
> >
> > The binary can be published as a CI artifact and accessed directly
> > from the latest artifact download link. This ensures we only consume
> > quota for the most recently published binary artifact. So I don't see
> > a compelling reason to upload binaries into git.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel
> > --
> > |: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> > |: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> > |: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
> >