On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug Goldstein wrote: >> sys-firmware/ipxe, sys-firmware/seabios, sys-firmware/sgabios, >> sys-firmware/vgabios > .. >> So basically, how important is it to keep supporting these separately >> buildable blobs knowing that it might slow the release of QEMU within >> our own tree. > > Each of those sys-firmware/ packages have quite significant use cases > well outside of QEMU.
Aware of that, but no one added them to the tree prior to me adding them to the tree for QEMU. Since then I haven't had a single user report a bug or contact me in any way about using it outside of QEMU. The one exception is myself with ipxe as I use that at work to provide something similar to boot.fedoraproject.org but on a much grander scale. > > Note also that in particular SeaBIOS but possibly the others too are > really recommended to build with a separate, known-good, toolchain - > even if you're building for the same platform that you run on. Aware of that as well, you'll notice we have always defaulted to using pre-built binaries of the releases by Kevin O'Connor the upstream maintainer and for any bugs reported with QEMU if someone built their own BIOS I always tell them they need to try with the upstream blob. The point of my original post was we go through the effort to ALLOW users to build their own binary blobs but is it really necessary as part of our culture? If this was Debian the answer would obviously be yes. -- Doug Goldstein
