Quoting Peter Maydell (2017-08-31 12:07:08) > On 31 August 2017 at 17:42, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Quoting Thomas Huth (2017-08-28 21:18:20) > >> Not sure, but maybe the following patch should be included, too, since > >> there were some bogus files in the old version of the U-Boot sources: > >> > >> 73663d71ef2bab201475d58e - PPC: E500: Update u-boot to v2017.07 > > > > Do you have more background on any issues caused by these bogus files? > > As it stands I think I would opt not to update unless there are specific > > user-visible bugs we're trying to address which warrant the risk of any > > regressions which might get pulled in in the process. > > These are the relevant threads: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.gnu.org_archive_html_qemu-2Ddiscuss_2017-2D07_msg00005.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=sThPI1c0u5x-3sg5Nw8wNqjg_5Z5xLzfPGC18E94zn8&m=QzqXTgvEiqKKSlIJgVfNCEiYXPQ5oVFxHFdUcgtf_L8&s=4BVFXlpHawdLmHljZCHMSNEVaj8JzUuNJw6HgKZzvn0&e= > > and > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.gnu.org_archive_html_qemu-2Ddevel_2017-2D07_msg02956.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=sThPI1c0u5x-3sg5Nw8wNqjg_5Z5xLzfPGC18E94zn8&m=QzqXTgvEiqKKSlIJgVfNCEiYXPQ5oVFxHFdUcgtf_L8&s=iO72EaulRM4jy_9QBnIcqH5K_hIWtAmBOMqy6QORs2M&e= > > > The summary is > (1) one of the u-boot source files which is distributed as part > of the QEMU tarball has a comment which makes it a bit unclear > whether it's something that's redistributable (the source file > isn't actually used in the u-boot target we care about) > (2) the u-boot binary blob we were shipping doesn't correspond > to the sources we were shipping > > and we fixed those in master by updating the blob and the > submodule to the most recent u-boot. > > I guess the low-risk fix for the stable branch would be to > update the u-boot submodule to 79c884d7e4 as suggested in > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.gnu.org_archive_html_qemu-2Ddevel_2017-2D07_msg03174.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=sThPI1c0u5x-3sg5Nw8wNqjg_5Z5xLzfPGC18E94zn8&m=QzqXTgvEiqKKSlIJgVfNCEiYXPQ5oVFxHFdUcgtf_L8&s=WY3VTHQGDP63Rw7hykVtVSbAqb8db-of8rkUG3hrlUg&e= > > which would bring the distributed sources into line with > the binary blob in stable, so no need to change the > blob we're distributing. I think it makes sense to do that > for stable.
Thanks for the background/suggestion, I think I'll take this approach. > > thanks > -- PMM >
