diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-November/009526.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-November/009526.html | 228 |
1 files changed, 228 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-November/009526.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-November/009526.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..62c47cab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-November/009526.html @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +<!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=%3C1321291018.3062.16.camel%40localhost%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="009574.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="009575.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=%3C1321291018.3062.16.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>Mon Nov 14 18:16:58 CET 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009574.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="009575.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#9526">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#9526">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#9526">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#9526">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 à 22:32 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit : +><i> On 13.11.2011 10:58, Michael Scherer wrote: +</I>><i> > Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 21:11 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit : +</I>><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>><i> > The fact that someone pushed a broken package is not a good reason to +</I>><i> > add patches to qemu. +</I>><i> OK, but I don't understand this. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Why to keep defunct packages (this could be at least "major+ issue" on +</I>><i> our bugzilla) in stable and don't even want to fix, ignore this academic +</I>><i> software (with maybe overall 1 000 000* downloads and 100 000 regular +</I>><i> users), and to support... the inadvisable opinion of Mageia around.. at +</I>><i> least the GNS3 users. +</I> +Let me rephrase again. Everybody sooner or later think "that soft is +great, but why do not add just a small patch there". That's just one +patch, where is the problem ? + +The problem appear just after a few months, when the patch is still not +upstream, and that someone who do not know C, python whatever has to +take the software and maintain it. Or when someone who know how to +program lose time rediffing the patch instead of doing something more +useful. We face bugs that cannot be reproduced upstream, security +problem that could be added in non reviewed patch by devs. Fragmentation +in linux distributions are also caused by differents features, due to +patchs. + +All of this need to be avoided, and I think we have enough problems with +stuff that people do not want to take care of it to not add more burden, +be it under the form of a small patch. All big collections start by one +little stuff. + + +><i> * 799 968 Windows Downloads (just from the sourceforge mirrors) of the +</I>><i> latest Windows binary of GNS3 (source +</I>><i> <A HREF="http://sourceforge.net/projects/gns-3/files/GNS3/0.7.4/">http://sourceforge.net/projects/gns-3/files/GNS3/0.7.4/</A>) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> > We have too many patches on a general scale, and I +</I>><i> > do not want to end with a 2nd package like gdb. +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > Patches make harder to upgrade, harder to make sure security is done +</I>><i> > correctly, and harder to ensure stuff are working ( since we are on our +</I>><i> > own when we patch something ). +</I>><i> > So for the patches, make sure it is upstream +</I>><i> It's not qemu upstream, it's GNS3 and its community upstream. +</I> +If you want to have a feature in qemu, the road is "push it upstream". +Once accepted upstream, it will sooner or later be in our packages. + +><i> > ( and given the discussion +</I>><i> > on ml, it should be soon ) +</I>><i> When I ask the developers, they don't know if qemu will include the +</I>><i> patch at all and when (now or after one year) and they suggested to do +</I>><i> the openSUSE way (today the most recommended and full featured Linux +</I>><i> distro for GNS3). +</I> +Maybe we are not talking of the same patch, but I am talking of this +one : +<A HREF="http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00629.html">http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00629.html</A> + +AFAIK, the patch have been accepted, just not committed yet. The last +mail were from 1 week ago. The only issue is that they are in freeze for +now, and the git web interface is down, and I do see the commit in my +checkout about it so far. + +><i> > and then in a tarball ( again, given that's a +</I>><i> > rc 1, that should be ok soon ). +</I>><i> > +</I>><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>><i> > Updates are not supposed to get new features, +</I>><i> Well this is a special case - the bugfix provides the feature, or the +</I>><i> feature provides the bugfix. +</I> +People will always tell "it is a special case". We can always say that +any feature is a bugfix, provided we say that the bug is "I cannot do +that". + + +-- +Michael Scherer + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009574.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="009575.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#9526">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#9526">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#9526">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#9526">[ 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> |