From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/1] qemu-firmware repo
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:01:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170927120106.GC12223@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24f9a9d3-91d8-7828-4f00-ab0856e17415@redhat.com>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:34:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/09/2017 11:15, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:19:22AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Are you planning to include only submodules, or also "QEMU-native"
> >> firmware such as linuxboot, kvmvapic, s390-ccw, spapr-rtas, etc.?
> >
> > The submodules make sense to split out because distro vendors buld them
> > independently of QEMU, and would rather not have them in the tarballs,
> > so they have a clearer path to license compliance and legal export
> > certification.
> >
> > The other bits of mention are all built normally as part of QEMU and
> > not subject to these problems, so I don't see a benefit to splitting
> > them out of QEMU.
>
> They aren't rebuilt in general. You end up with x86 builds of
> qemu-system-x86 rebuilding linuxboot, ppc builds of qemu-system-ppc
> rebuilding spapr-rtas, etc. (search configure for "roms="). In fact,
> QEMU has a special exception in Fedora just because these are too hard
> to untangle.
>
> So the advantage would be the ability to introduce better infrastructure
> for cross compilation, without complicating further the QEMU build system.
Ah I see.
>
> > putting those bits in the qemu-firmware
> > repo would re-introduce the problem we're trying to solve because
> > distros would then need to get linuxboox, kvmvapi etc from a tarball
> > of qemu-firmware which would once again include all the bits they
> > don't want to have.
>
> This is true. We could distribute a qemu-firmware tarball with just the
> QEMU-specific bits, and a qemu-firmware-all tarball with also those that
> are built separately.
Yep, as long as there's a tarball for the QEMU bits that does not
contain the 3rd party bits, that would work.
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 :|
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-27 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-26 11:17 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/1] qemu-firmware repo Gerd Hoffmann
2017-09-26 11:17 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] add Makefile, add configs for seabios Gerd Hoffmann
2017-09-27 7:19 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/1] qemu-firmware repo Paolo Bonzini
2017-09-27 9:11 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-09-27 9:15 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2017-09-27 10:45 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2017-09-27 11:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-09-27 12:01 ` Daniel P. Berrange [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170927120106.GC12223@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).