[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-users
Subject:    Re: Add M1 Hypervisor Support for QEMU Port?
From:       André-John_Mas <andrejohn.mas () gmail ! com>
Date:       2021-10-27 13:32:27
Message-ID: 2F46E695-1C67-48DB-8B7B-601009806996 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Staging would probably mean it is pre-release, so they'll be wanting to do some \
testing on it, before then next numbered release. Not knowing their release cycle, \
I'd just say give them a month or so. In the meantime, you can always build yourself, \
outside of a MacPorts install, if you want it now. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 27, 2021, at 02:24, Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 06:02, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 2021, at 22:06, Sriranga Veeraraghavan wrote:
> > > 
> > > Is there a way to add an optional variant to the QEMU Portfile that would apply \
> > > this patch?
> > 
> > Yes, it is technically possible to do that. However, we prefer not to include and \
> > forever maintain unofficial patches. Instead, we would prefer for such patches to \
> > be submitted to the upstream developers of the software. If they include it, then \
> > MacPorts will automatically get that and any other changes when we update to the \
> > next version of the software. If upstream elects not to include a patch, then we \
> > would have to seriously consider whether it would be appropriate for us to \
> > second-guess their decision and include it in MacPorts anyway.
> 
> I checked their patch procedure which looks pretty involved ...
> 
> ... but according to
> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/85173
> it looks like upstream has already merged the changes.
> 
> It's hard to follow exactly because commits don't exactly match the
> contents of that patch, but by looking at and blaming individual files
> (touched by that patch) in the master branch, the first three randomly
> chosen changes seem to be included, some of them in the "staging"
> branch, whatever that means.
> 
> Given that HB has started this and seems to be actively involved in
> maintaining the patches, I would say that it's probably perfectly safe
> to include the patches on any arm machine at least. Most likely the
> patches will either no longer be needed with the next release, or in
> the worst case we can copy them over from HB once again.
> 
> Ranga, if you are willing to prepare a pull request, I would support
> that. I don't think we need a variant for that, I would just
> unconditionally apply the patch, at least on any arm-based CPU.
> 
> Mojca


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]