| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
>> sys-firmware/ipxe, sys-firmware/seabios, sys-firmware/sgabios, |
| 4 |
>> sys-firmware/vgabios |
| 5 |
> .. |
| 6 |
>> So basically, how important is it to keep supporting these separately |
| 7 |
>> buildable blobs knowing that it might slow the release of QEMU within |
| 8 |
>> our own tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Each of those sys-firmware/ packages have quite significant use cases |
| 11 |
> well outside of QEMU. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Aware of that, but no one added them to the tree prior to me adding |
| 14 |
them to the tree for QEMU. Since then I haven't had a single user |
| 15 |
report a bug or contact me in any way about using it outside of QEMU. |
| 16 |
The one exception is myself with ipxe as I use that at work to provide |
| 17 |
something similar to boot.fedoraproject.org but on a much grander |
| 18 |
scale. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Note also that in particular SeaBIOS but possibly the others too are |
| 22 |
> really recommended to build with a separate, known-good, toolchain - |
| 23 |
> even if you're building for the same platform that you run on. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Aware of that as well, you'll notice we have always defaulted to using |
| 26 |
pre-built binaries of the releases by Kevin O'Connor the upstream |
| 27 |
maintainer and for any bugs reported with QEMU if someone built their |
| 28 |
own BIOS I always tell them they need to try with the upstream blob. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The point of my original post was we go through the effort to ALLOW |
| 32 |
users to build their own binary blobs but is it really necessary as |
| 33 |
part of our culture? If this was Debian the answer would obviously be |
| 34 |
yes. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Doug Goldstein |
Archives