[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?

Mon Nov 14 18:16:58 CET 2011

Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 à 22:32 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
+> On 13.11.2011 10:58, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> > Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 21:11 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
+> >> On 12.11.2011 20:20, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> >>> Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 16:44 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
+> >>>
+> >>>> There is also one important patch missed in Mageia -
+> >>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00787.html it's
+> >>>> dependency for the GNS3 simulator. OpenSUSE already includes it
+> >>>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=qemu&project=openSUSE%3ATools
+> >>>>
+> >>>> If nobody is against I will do it and contact the maintainer (misc).
+> >>> I prefer to wait on the stable release ( ie, no rc1 ).
+> >>> We will wait on stable version of qemu.
+> >> OK
+> >>> And no patch unless it comes from upstream ( and even, I am not keen on
+> >>> backporting feature, better wait for stable release ).
+> >>>
+> >> GNS3 is already in stable! This package is broken - no dynamips (=no
+> >> router emulation at all...), no patched qemu (no virtualization support
+> >> at all...) According to the developers and their online documentation
+> >> for package maintainers http://forum.gns3.net/post11571.html UDP patched
+> >> Qemu is dependency/very important.
+> > The fact that someone pushed a broken package is not a good reason to
+> > add patches to qemu.
+> OK, but I don't understand this.
+> 
+> Why to keep defunct packages (this could be at least "major+ issue"  on 
+> our bugzilla) in stable and don't even want to fix, ignore this academic 
+> software (with maybe overall 1 000 000* downloads and 100 000 regular 
+> users), and to support... the inadvisable opinion of Mageia around.. at 
+> least the GNS3 users.
+
+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. 
+
+
+> * 799 968 Windows Downloads (just from the sourceforge mirrors) of the 
+> latest Windows binary of GNS3 (source 
+> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gns-3/files/GNS3/0.7.4/)
+> 
+> > 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
+> It's not qemu upstream, it's GNS3 and its community upstream.
+
+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.
+
+> >   ( and given the discussion
+> > on ml, it should be soon )
+> When I ask the developers, they don't know if qemu will include the 
+> patch at all and when (now or after one year) and they suggested to do 
+> the openSUSE way (today the most recommended and full featured Linux 
+> distro for GNS3).
+
+Maybe we are not talking of the same patch, but I am talking of this
+one :
+http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00629.html
+
+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.
+
+> > and then in a tarball ( again, given that's a
+> > rc 1, that should be ok soon ).
+> >
+> >> We must fix the package and provide at least not so heavy broken ones...
+> >>
+> >> I've prepared new version of GNS3, included into svn dynamips and
+> >> xdotool (this one suggested) - these I can maintain with my mentor, so I
+> >> ask for patch qemu in stable versus UDP support.
+> > Updates are not supposed to get new features,
+> Well this is a special case - the bugfix provides the feature, or the 
+> feature provides the bugfix.
+
+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
+
+