1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20qemu%20new%20upstream%20release%20%281.0-rc1%29%20and%20should%20we%0A%20move%20from%20qemu-kvm%20to%20qemu%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C1321178295.14147.10.camel%40localhost%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="009503.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="009511.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?</H1>
<B>Michael Scherer</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20qemu%20new%20upstream%20release%20%281.0-rc1%29%20and%20should%20we%0A%20move%20from%20qemu-kvm%20to%20qemu%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C1321178295.14147.10.camel%40localhost%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?">misc at zarb.org
</A><BR>
<I>Sun Nov 13 10:58:15 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009503.html">[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="009511.html">[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#9506">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9506">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9506">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9506">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 21:11 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
><i> On 12.11.2011 20:20, Michael Scherer wrote:
</I>><i> > Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 16:44 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >> There is also one important patch missed in Mageia -
</I>><i> >> <A HREF="http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00787.html">http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00787.html</A> it's
</I>><i> >> dependency for the GNS3 simulator. OpenSUSE already includes it
</I>><i> >> <A HREF="https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=qemu&project=openSUSE%3ATools">https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=qemu&project=openSUSE%3ATools</A>
</I>><i> >>
</I>><i> >> If nobody is against I will do it and contact the maintainer (misc).
</I>><i> > I prefer to wait on the stable release ( ie, no rc1 ).
</I>><i> > We will wait on stable version of qemu.
</I>><i> OK
</I>><i> > And no patch unless it comes from upstream ( and even, I am not keen on
</I>><i> > backporting feature, better wait for stable release ).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> GNS3 is already in stable! This package is broken - no dynamips (=no
</I>><i> router emulation at all...), no patched qemu (no virtualization support
</I>><i> at all...) According to the developers and their online documentation
</I>><i> for package maintainers <A HREF="http://forum.gns3.net/post11571.html">http://forum.gns3.net/post11571.html</A> UDP patched
</I>><i> Qemu is dependency/very important.
</I>
The fact that someone pushed a broken package is not a good reason to
add patches to qemu. We have too many patches on a general scale, and I
do not want to end with a 2nd package like gdb.
Patches make harder to upgrade, harder to make sure security is done
correctly, and harder to ensure stuff are working ( since we are on our
own when we patch something ).
So for the patches, make sure it is upstream ( and given the discussion
on ml, it should be soon ) and then in a tarball ( again, given that's a
rc 1, that should be ok soon ).
><i> We must fix the package and provide at least not so heavy broken ones...
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I've prepared new version of GNS3, included into svn dynamips and
</I>><i> xdotool (this one suggested) - these I can maintain with my mentor, so I
</I>><i> ask for patch qemu in stable versus UDP support.
</I>
Updates are not supposed to get new features, so that's no. And again,
maybe people could do more tests before pushing broken rpm to stable
( like gsn3 ).
--
Michael Scherer
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009503.html">[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="009511.html">[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#9506">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9506">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9506">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9506">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
