On 13.05.19 09:42, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:21 +0200
> Thomas Huth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2019 15.59, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Shall we cc stable this?
>>
>> I think I'd rather not do it unless someone really speaks up that they
>> urgently need it. If we could use the binary from the master branch, I'd
>> say go for it, but in this case we'd need to build a separate
>> s390-ccw.img for this (without the DASD passthrough patches), and since
>> the stable branch does not get that much testing attention from all the
>> s390x developers, you'd end up with a firmware binary in the stable
>> branch that is not very well tested... This does not sound very
>> appealing to me.
>
> FWIW, I have rebuilt the bios for the stable tree in the past, when a
> bios patch had been picked. In this case, however, I would need to rely
> on someone else to sanity-check the binary.
>
> How likely are folks to run -stable QEMU with a bootmap containing
> signatures? It would be one more QEMU version with toleration for this,
> but I expect distros to pick up this one anyway?
Yes, I will try to push this into distros. I usually try to push things also
to stable, but this might be more important for the kernel.
