Packaging rules for build from source vs BPF byte code ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In QEMU there's a desire to make use of BPF programs for implementing
some networking features. The current patches are proposing adding 
prebuilt BPF byte code to the QEMU repo, with source available, but
not actually building from source during a build.

I was wondering if we had any specific guidance or rules covering the
shipping BPF programs in particular ?

To me it feels like BPF programs should fall under normal Fedora
practice that expects everything to be built from master source.

We do have the exception that allows firmware to be shipped as
pre-built blobs, but I'm thinking that BPF programs could not
be considered as firmware.

Has this been discussed before, if so can someone point to the
results, as I'm not finding anything specific to BPF programs and
Fedora packaging via Google.

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 :|
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux