On 28.03.2011, at 21:52, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 03/28/2011 01:24 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 01:02:45PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> On 03/28/2011 12:42 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/28/2011 04:03 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> Um, ok. Do I need to do anything about this? >>>>>>> I'm also not sure this is too important. >>>>>> It's GPL compliance so yes, it's very important. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of our firmware blobs come from svn repos which can't be >>>>>>> submoduled. >>>>>> The only firmware blob we're not currently including as a git submodule >>>>>> is >>>>>> OpenBIOS. >>>>> No, there's also OpenHack'Ware (ppc_rom.bin) and s390-zipl.rom. >>>> Alex, what's the source of zipl? >>>> >>>>>> I believe the main reason is that different boards use different >>>>>> commits so a single submodule is a bit challenge. We probably ought to >>>>>> figure something out here though for the next release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can anyone comment a bit more about OpenBIOS? >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, OpenBIOS is already actively mirrored on git.qemu.org so all that's >>>>>> needed is a patch that does a git submodule add with the appropriate >>>>>> commit. >>>>> That would be an improvement. Though building various OpenBIOS images >>>>> depends on appropriate cross compilers. The situation is actually same >>>>> as with SeaBIOS. >>>> Can you do a git submodule add then? >>>> >>>>>>> And as long as we don't have a consistent policy about it, we can just >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> well stick with the README file. >>>>>> We do have a consistent policy :-) We're just not enforcing it as >>>>>> tightly >>>>>> as we should. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any binary we ship in the release tgz's should also have corresponding >>>>>> source in a submodule. >>>>> What about OpenHack'Ware (and PReP machine), should it be deleted? >>>> Yes. I don't think the source for that is available, correct? I >>>> don't think we have any other choice. >>>> >>> Debian still holds a copy of the code. >> >> I had thought that the actual binary was from Jocelyn and contains >> patches that noone else has. In fact, the last commit is: >> >> commit 55aa45ddde3283cdd781326d001f7456bf02f684 >> Author: j_mayer <j_mayer@c046a42c-6fe2-441c-8c8c-71466251a162> >> Date: Mon Oct 1 06:44:33 2007 +0000 >> >> Quickly hack PowerPC BIOS able to boot on CDROM again. >> >>> People have worked recently to >>> restore prep support that has been broken by various patches, it would >>> be a pitty to remove it without before asking them. >> >> I'd be very happy to just submodule whatever sources Debian is using. >> > > I am not sure that it corresponds to the latest code, so it might have > some issues, but at least it is something that is usable. The code is a > vailable from: > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/openhackware/ > > Note that the .diff.gz contains a few patches needed to fix build > issues.
I really wouldn't want to see PREP getting removed, now that we have a maintainer for it again :). It might be a good idea to recompile the binary we ship from that source though? Alex