Hi, On Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2015, Patrick Georgi wrote: > > Things is, _AIUI_, there is no common payload which can be enabled for > > all boards. Is that correct? > The one that should run everywhere is Google's depthcharge, and that > isn't hooked up to the build system like SeaBIOS is (and even > depthcharge isn't available for emulation/qemu-riscv). So you're > correct, there is no single payload for every board.
ok. > Since we select default payloads in our Kconfig rules (seabios for > x86), I guess we should start doing the same for other architectures. > I don't think that belongs in your test script - things might change > in the future, and that shouldn't require additional effort on your > part. agreed :) > We'll work on that, and will tell you once there's a plan and/or > implementation. cool, thanks. That said, as the current tests have reached 100%, I'm thinking about removing the "--payloads none" switch again now already, so that then some images have payloads and some not. > > And then I'm wondering, "what next"? AIUI you don't ever offer images for > > download and instead expect users to build coreboot themselves. So the > > whole topic of verifying and reproducing the vendors (=your!) binaries > > is a bit mood here, at least atm. Any comments on that? > > There are distributions, sort of. > Google ships coreboot as part of Chrome OS (which requires a huge > build system even to build just coreboot). > Then there's libreboot (www.libreboot.org), which ships their > coreboot-variant (without blobs and with as few patches against > coreboot as possible) with GRUB2 as payload for a small selection of > boards that they can support. > There are also some other vendors, but they're less visible. Hm. I guess I will leave it here for the moment, hoping that someone will pick up the task of verifying actually released and downloadable images... > If you want to support coreboot distributions (that ship binaries), > libreboot is currently your best bet. added as question to my TODO :) > > Last, and probably least: currently the headline of the page says "fast, > > flexible and reproducible Open Source firmware_?_" which I felt was > > appropriate when only a few images with payload were reproducible. > Oh, I loved it, still do! At some point we should replace the question > mark with an exclamation mark, though :-) :-) I've change the code to exchange the question mark against an exclaimation mark if 100% are reached... :) > > Oh, and as the page says, it's currently only updated once a month and on > > demand, so please do ping me if you merged some reproducible changes into > > master! > Thanks, will do. Let's start immediately :-) > Since you mentioned 'once we reach 100% (without payloads)' earlier: > the issue of the remaining 7 non-reproducible board should be fixed > since today, in response to your report. I'd appreciate if you could > do another run to verify this. https://jenkins.debian.net/view/reproducible/job/reproducible_coreboot/44/console has just finished and https://reproducible.debian.net/coreboot/coreboot.html now says "248 (100.0%) out of 248 built coreboot images were reproducible in our test setup" - kudos!! cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds