[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] updating to a u-boot without the case-sensitive filenam
From: |
Daniel P. Berrange |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] updating to a u-boot without the case-sensitive filename clash |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:15:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02) |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 09:22 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Hi; we currently have an issue with the u-boot we're using where it
> > has a file and a directory that differ only in case (scripts/Kconfig
> > and scripts/kconfig/). This means that QEMU's release tarballs won't
> > unpack on a case-insensitive filesystem (OSX, Windows).
> >
> > u-boot have now fixed this upstream:
> > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=610eec7f0593574c034054ba54fc1c934755e208
> >
> > but we need to decide how best to get this fix into QEMU so that
> > our tarballs will unpack, both for the upcoming QEMU 2.11 and
> > ideally for future point releases based on 2.10.
> >
> > I can see a couple of options:
> > (1) wait for next u-boot release (scheduled for Nov 13, 2017),
> > and move to that
> > [downsides: would be in the middle of QEMU's own release cycle,
> > pretty late to fix any problems with the new version;
> > rather a big change to put into stable]
> > (2) move to u-boot current head-of-unstable
> > [downsides: would mean running some random git commit version,
> > also not really very suitable for stable]
> > (3) backport the upstream fix to sit on top of the u-boot version
> > we're currently using (I think the patch should apply as-is)
> > [downsides: would need to figure out how to get that commit into
> > the mirror of the u-boot repo that we use; would a build of it
> > claim a misleading u-boot version number?]
> > (4) suggest your better idea here!
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> half-and-half? Use option (1) for 2.11 (that is, wait for November's
> release there), but option (3) for 2.10.2 (that is, backport just the
> fix onto the u-boot version uses in 2.10.x right now)? (I'm not sure
> I'm a fan of the idea of split maintenance like that, but am throwing it
> out as a possible (4) since you asked).
There's always the "do nothing" option for the stable branch too.
It isn't nice but there is a workaround, which we could easily publicise
on the '/download/' page of the website until 2.11 comes out
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 :|