Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/12] EDK2 Firmware roms

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/20/19 19:59, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> (+Daniel and MST)
> 
> On 03/20/19 16:58, Peter Maydell wrote:

>> A question: does this absolutely have to be 'xz' and not bzip ?
> 
> I think bzip2 should work fine too:
> 
>   1146804 edk2-aarch64-code.fd.xz       | 1177603 edk2-aarch64-code.fd.bz2
>   1147852 edk2-arm-code.fd.xz           | 1173662 edk2-arm-code.fd.bz2
>     10008 edk2-arm-vars.fd.xz           |     263 edk2-arm-vars.fd.bz2
>   1674764 edk2-i386-code.fd.xz          | 1688659 edk2-i386-code.fd.bz2
>   1870024 edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.xz   | 1881979 edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>       320 edk2-i386-vars.fd.xz          |     190 edk2-i386-vars.fd.bz2
>   1655276 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.xz        | 1669280 edk2-x86_64-code.fd.bz2
>   1889024 edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.xz | 1901210 
> edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.bz2
>   9394072 total                         | 9492846 total
> 
> ~1% size increase in total.
> 
> If we switch to bzip2, should I hurry for 4.0, or take my time in the next 
> development cycle?

An alternative to rebasing / reworking the series in-place (for
xz-->bz2) and to missing the 4.0 bus consequently, would be to merge the
PULL req as is, and for me to submit an incremental update, for the
xz-->bz2 replacement. I think that would qualify as a bugfix, and be
eligible for the hard freeze too.

Thanks
Laszlo