On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 11:01:43AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:25 AM Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > We have up to now tried really hard as a project to avoid building and > > hosting our own binaries to avoid theoretical* GPL compliance issues. > > This is why we've ended up relying so much on distros to build and host > > binaries we can use. Most QEMU developers have their own personal zoo of > > kernels and userspaces which they use for testing. I use custom kernels > > with a buildroot user space in initramfs for example. We even use the > > qemu advent calendar for a number of our avocado tests but we basically > > push responsibility for GPL compliance to the individual developers in > > that case. > > > > *theoretical in so far I suspect most people would be happy with a > > reference to an upstream repo/commit and .config even if that is not to > > the letter of the "offer of source code" required for true compliance. > > > > Yes, it'd be fine (great, really!) if a lightweight distro (or > kernels/initrd) were to > be maintained and identified as an "official" QEMU pick. Putting the binaries > in the source tree though, brings all sorts of compliance issues.
All that's really needed is to have the source + build recipes in a separate git repo. A pipeline can build them periodically and publish artifacts, which QEMU can then consume in its pipeline. 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 :|
