On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:52:17PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 13:49 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > >>> How about we don't bother to determine this at runtime at all? > > >> > > >> Because it will be a PITA for testers + developers to figure the correct > > >> .config switches of the day during the transition phase? > > > > > > Why is it a PITA? Are you developing QEMU? Just use the makefile from > > > roms/config.seabios Are you using QEMU binary? Just use the defaults. > > > > SeaBIOS binaries are running on a wide range of qemu versions today. > > Changing that is a big deal. People are not used to it, and even when > > writing it to the README people will stumble over it. It also is pretty > > inconvenient in a number of cases. For starters the usual way to > > package seabios and qemu in distros is to have separate packages ... > > I agree that for the foreseeable future, we should be able to build > SeaBIOS such that it can cope with old versions of Qemu that *don't* > provide ACPI tables. > > And of course we should make it cope with new versions of Qemu that > *do*. > > But I'm not sure I see any point in doing it table-by-table. Surely it > can be all or nothing? > > -- > dwmw2
If someone wants to add a feature where same bios works with old and new qemu, I don't see a problem here. I also don't see why we should not allow building a minimal bios that only works with the new specific qemu. This is the only option that distros will actually ship, so runtime detection is a developer's tool really, seems quite sane to allow saving some resources by removing it. No? -- MST _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list SeaBIOS@seabios.org http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios