From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1ChnPW-0000SL-Vh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:15:07 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1ChnPU-0000R3-Ak for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:15:04 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChnPU-0000Qd-4s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:15:04 -0500 Received: from [199.232.41.5] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1ChnEl-0004Vu-C7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:03:59 -0500 Received: from [192.25.206.10] (helo=gluck.debian.org) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Chmz8-0003Li-KS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:47:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:08:37 +0100 From: Guillem Jover Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ROM sources and checkout dates or versions Message-ID: <20041224100837.GA17389@zulo.hadrons.org> References: <20041223134038.GD776@zulo.hadrons.org> <41CB4604.3030008@bellard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41CB4604.3030008@bellard.org> Sender: Guillem Jover Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 11:26:12PM +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > It is a bad idea to use the BIOSes from Bochs because QEMU has specific > patches. As I maintain the Debian Bochs packages as well, I have applied those patches already, no problem here. :> > Moreover, the recent Bochs BIOS may be incompatible with QEMU > (I need to look at them). Well, yes that seems to be what we are experiencing. I'll try latest Bochs CVS snapshots. > You should include the QEMU BIOSes as-is in an > architecture independent Debian package. > > I am relunctant to provide the source code because it would duplicate > the code from Bochs and it would need a build process I am not ready to > support. Yes I can understand, and it would duplicate the code as well on Debian, but we'll need those sources anyway if we have to provide a standalone package for the BIOSes, we cannot ship binaries without sources. At least for Debian needs, just providing the sources in tarball form and not supporting the build process would be just fine, although suboptimal for all. But we can understand you may not want that. =) > The provided diffs are suffisant to build the BIOS because they > give the date and CVS version of the corresponding Bochs code. Ok, if the patches are resyned on every release that would be enough. thanks, guillem