On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 18:51 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 08/07/17 16:40, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 7 August 2017 at 15:31, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > As I recall there were issues with FAT driver licensing in edk2, > > > but I've heard there were some changes in that regard. > > > > > > Is there any other reasons why we are not putting subj. > > > in QEMU tree like we do with SeaBIOS and other roms? > > > > I suspect the primary answer is "nobody who's willing to > > maintain, test and update the resulting binary blobs has > > stepped forward to say they want to do so" :-) > > > > (I think that shipping them in the QEMU tree would be > > nice but is principally a convenience for our direct > > users, since distros are going to want to build their > > own ROM blobs from source anyway.) > > I agree that OVMF and ArmVirtQemu firmware binaries (and matching > varstore templates, likely compressed) should be bundled with QEMU. > There are no license-related reasons left that would prevent this. > > Please let us discuss this when Gerd returns from vacation. (CC'ing > Gerd.)
slighly oldish wip branch: https://www.kraxel.org/cgit/qemu/log/?h=work/edk2 Related question (as the edk2 blobs are pretty big): Do we want commit this to the qemu repo directly? Or should we create a qemu-firmware repo for the precompiled blobs and hook it up as submodule? cheers, Gerd
