[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:52:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 |
On 8/4/20 9:42 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 04.08.20 um 09:23 schrieb Philippe Mathieu-Daudé:
>
>> On 8/4/20 8:55 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>> Am 04.08.20 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas Huth:
>>>
>>>> On 03/08/2020 22.25, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>>>> We can add a CI pipeline on Microsoft infrastructure by using a GitHub
>>>>> action.
>>>> Sorry for being ignorant, but how does that solve the legal questions
>>>> just because it is running on GitHub instead of a different CI?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>> Sorry, I though that would be clear by looking at the included shell script.
>>>
>>> The build does not use the Microsoft SDK. It gets the required header
>>> files from Mingw-w64. They added them in git master.
>> Oh, so we can do that with GitLab too now, we don't need to rely on the
>> GitHub 'Actions' CI in particular, right?
>
>
> That's right. The build script was written for Ubuntu, so depending on
> the distribution used for GitLab CI it will need some modifications. If
> GitLab already has a recent Mingw-w64, it might be sufficient to fix the
> case of the header file names. Mingw-w64 uses winhvplatform.h while QEMU
> expects WinHvPlatform.h and so on. I used symbolic links to add the
> camel case filenames.
>
>
>>> See
>>> https://github.com/stweil/qemu/blob/master/.github/workflows/build.sh#L50
>>> for code details.
>>>
>>> It's still shameful that MS is forcing developers to waste time
>>> rewriting API headers, just because the MS legal departments are not
>>> able to understand the needs of Open Source development.
>> There has be a big switch from Microsoft toward Open Source, I attended
>> some of there talk at the Open Source Summit in 2018. Maybe we simply
>> haven't contacted the right persons to make the changes...?
>
>
> Maybe, but it is difficult to find the right person in a large company
> like MS, and legal departments are often somehow special.
Sunil seems quite active with the WHPX development, and the section is
listed as "Supported [my Microsoft]" in MAINTAINERS. I'm confident we
have someone else able to help use finding the right contacts in the
company :)
>
> And yes, they learned that Open Source can help them for their business,
> too.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/08/03
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Stefan Weil, 2020/08/03
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Stefan Weil, 2020/08/03
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Thomas Huth, 2020/08/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Stefan Weil, 2020/08/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/08/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Stefan Weil, 2020/08/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries,
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <=
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Thomas Huth, 2020/08/04
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/08/04
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Sunil Muthuswamy, 2020/08/18
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/08/18