Re: Why we should avoid new submodules if possible

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:39:31PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 13.14, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Come on, this is just a test. We *really* don't care if an ISO
> > > > we use to test ACPI is using an exploitable version of grub.
> > > 
> > > Wait, I thought we were only talking about tappy here? The ISO binaries
> > > should certainly *not* be bundled in the QEMU tarballs (they are too big
> > > already anyway, we should rather think of moving the firmware binaries out
> > > of the tarball instead).
> > > 
> > >   Thomas
> > 
> > IIUC there are three things we are discussing
> > - biosbits source
> > - biosbits image
> > - tappy
> 
> Oh well, I missed that part of the discussion so far since the corresponding
> patches did not make it to the mailing list ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Anyway, that's just another indication that it might not be the right fit
> for inclusion into the QEMU source tree. So either download it similar to
> (or included in) the avocado tests, or maybe another solution would be to
> have a separate "qemu-ci" or "qemu-testing" repository for stuff like this
> ... ?
> 
>  Thomas

I don't think anyone suggested sticking all those blobs in qemu.git: I
proposed a submodule, others proposed the web (fetched with avocado or
just wget). If it's a submodule we'll want to skip it in the tarball,
and skip the test if not checked out.  Whoever is trying to do
development out of a tarball should just stop :).

-- 
MST