On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 01:54:40PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 9/19/19 1:41 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 01:18:57PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote: > >> Am 19.09.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Philippe Mathieu-Daudé: > >>> Add a job to cross-build QEMU with WHPX enabled. > >>> > >>> Use the Win10SDK headers from the Android Project, as commented > >>> in https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg03842.html > >>> > >>> Based-on: <20190918121101.30690-1-phi...@redhat.com> > >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg03844.html > >>> > >>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (2): > >>> tests/docker: Add fedora-win10sdk-cross image > >>> .shippable.yml: Build WHPX enabled binaries > >>> > >>> .shippable.yml | 2 ++ > >>> tests/docker/Makefile.include | 1 + > >>> .../dockerfiles/fedora-win10sdk-cross.docker | 21 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 tests/docker/dockerfiles/fedora-win10sdk-cross.docker > >>> > >> > >> Please note that the required header files are part of the Win10SDK > >> which is not published under a free license, so I am afraid that they > >> cannot be used with QEMU code to produce free binaries. > > > > Can you elaborate on why you think that is the case ? > > > > Looking at the 3 header files used, all they contain are struct > > definitions and integer constants, fortunately no functional > > code in macros or inline functions. As such, it is questionable > > whether the headers alone can be considered copyrightable material. > > Any compatible implementation that follows the WHPX API/ABI will by > > neccessity be the same, modulo code style. > > > > Further, from a GPL POV, these headers should fall under the system > > libraries exception, as WHPX is core low level operating system > > functionality. > > > > There's a valid legal question as to how to we got access to the > > files in the first place. Assuming they are freely distributable > > though, given their hosting on Google Android downloads. > > > > So the fact that the headers are not under an open source / free > > license doesn't look like it should impact the ability to distribute > > the resulting QEMU binaries. > > Are we distributing the resulting binaries? > I don't think so, we only build until linking in a scratch container and > discard its content, we don't have access to the container storage via > Shippable (also Travis). We only use the exit code and the console > output from the build. > > We are not distributing those headers neither, as we currently do not > distribute the docker images.
No, but I think its none the less useful to consider what impact is on distribution of binaries. Currently Stefan builds & distributes the QEMU Windows binaries for each release. I think the ideal would be for Windows builds to be a core deliverable of the upstram release process. So this docker CI job can be viewed as a stepping stone to that point, especially if it is made to run the full NSIS installer build, not just standalone binary build. 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 :|