[ipxe-devel] Remove gpxe or replace with ipxe?

[Gene Cumm]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael Brown <mbrown at fensystems.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/10/13 10:45, Robin Smidsrød wrote:
>>
>> On 09.10.2013 02:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> The gPXE in the Syslinux tree is ridiculously old.  We could either
>>> replace it with iPXE or just drop it, giving people a recipe for how to
>>> integrate with iPXE themselves.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>>
>> I'm actually more of a fan of adding docs which explain how to integrate
>> themselves, to avoid the ipxe checkout inside syslinux getting too stale.
>>
>> Alternatively use git subtree/modules support to pull in latest ipxe
>> more easily using a makefile target to upgrade ipxe to latest version.
>
>
> A git submodule sounds like a good idea to me.  Let me know if there are
> changes required to the iPXE tree to make this kind of integration smoother.
>
> As someone already mentioned, you now need undionly.kkkpxe when building
> ipxelinux.0, for reasons documented at
>
>   http://git.ipxe.org/ipxe.git/commitdiff/9a93db3

I'm no legal expert but I'd think that including even a binary blob of
undionly.* would carry an obligation to include the iPXE source code
due to the license requirement of including the source or ensuring its
availability upon request and including the source is the easiest way
to ensure compliance.

I'd also understand the desire to include the binary blob in the git
repo and remove it from most/all Makefile cleaning rules.

I believe the primary goal of gpxelinux.0 and ipxelinux.0 was to
implement HTTP capabilities now found in lpxelinux.0.  However,
lpxelinux.0 certainly hasn't seen enough exposure to make the decision
clear.  I'd probably lean towards complete removal but not by much.

-- 
-Gene