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. The downloading of the images at test "setup time" is still a better approach, given that tests will simply skip if the download is not possible. - Cleber.
