From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxB2A-0002V8-UR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:01:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxB21-0001zM-EV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:01:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50866) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxB21-0001yt-7j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:01:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E53C6563 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:01:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:01:06 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20170927120106.GC12223@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <20170926111757.3628-1-kraxel@redhat.com> <7f50b7bb-bbf7-7e0e-754a-234d4244fb72@redhat.com> <20170927091531.GA12223@redhat.com> <24f9a9d3-91d8-7828-4f00-ab0856e17415@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24f9a9d3-91d8-7828-4f00-ab0856e17415@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/1] qemu-firmware repo List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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 :|