* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > On 16 March 2017 at 15:46, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:23:45PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> OK, here's a concrete proposal for deprecating/dropping out of > >> date host OS and architecture support. > >> > >> We'll put this in the ChangeLog 'Future incompatible changes' > >> section: > >> ----- > >> * Removal of support for untested host OS and architectures: > >> > >> The QEMU Project intends to drop support in a future release for any > >> host OS or architecture which we do not have access to a build and test > >> machine for. This affects the following host OSes: > >> * Native CYGWIN building > >> * GNU/kFreeBSD > >> * FreeBSD > >> * DragonFly BSD > >> * NetBSD > >> * OpenBSD > >> * Solaris > >> * AIX > >> * Haiku > >> and the following host CPU architectures: > >> * ia64 > >> * sparc > >> > >> Specifically, if we do not have a build and test system available > >> to us by the time we release QEMU 2.10, we will remove support in the > >> release that follows 2.10. > >> ----- > >> > >> I'm not sure here if we want to just have this as a bald list, > >> or to have some kind of two tier setup with OSes we expect to > >> dump in one tier and OSes where we're really trolling for a build > >> machine in the other tier (the "unlikely to dump" category would > >> get most of the BSD variants in it). Putting out a changelog > >> that says "we're gonna drop all the BSDs" seems like it might > >> produce a lot of yelling? > > > > I think it depends on the level of bit-rot we are aware of, and > > whether we expect anyone is likely to fix the bit-rot should it > > be discovered. > > > > Simply not having a build machine for QEMU CI doesn't imply that > > it is totally broken, and even if some pieces are broken, it > > doesn't imply that QEMU is unusable. > > No, but it does imply that our CI is missing a big chunk. > Realistically, for the BSDs where I want to get to is "we > have BSD coverage in our CI setup". The problem at the moment > is that we (presumably) have BSD users but we have basically > no BSD developers active upstream, which in my view is not > a very long-term satisfactory situation.
I build-test the FreeBSD when I do migration pulls; given it's just a VM it's not too hard; my main reason is that I use it as a proxy that gives it a good chance to get past your MacOS build. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
