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
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
|
<!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=%3C4EC0377D.2080200%40gmx.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="009506.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="009524.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>Kamil Rytarowski</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=%3C4EC0377D.2080200%40gmx.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?">n54 at gmx.com
</A><BR>
<I>Sun Nov 13 22:32:45 CET 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009506.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="009524.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#9511">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9511">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9511">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9511">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On 13.11.2011 10:58, Michael Scherer wrote:
><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>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.
* 799 968 Windows Downloads (just from the sourceforge mirrors) of the
latest Windows binary of GNS3 (source
<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> 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>It's not qemu upstream, it's GNS3 and its community upstream.
><i> ( and given the discussion
</I>><i> on ml, it should be soon )
</I>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).
><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>Well this is a special case - the bugfix provides the feature, or the
feature provides the bugfix.
><i> so that's no. And again,
</I>><i> maybe people could do more tests before pushing broken rpm to stable
</I>><i> ( like gsn3 ).
</I>
OK. So if gns3 can't be fixed for the stable - than should be removed
from the repos (for ISOs is to late).
If we don't provide qemu patch, then gns3 should be removed from
Cauldron as well.
I believe removing GNS3 is better than keeping it broken and.. irritate
people (I don't count the opinion of our quality). Later some 3rd party
repos can provide GNS3 and its dependencies.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009506.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="009524.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#9511">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#9511">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#9511">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#9511">[ 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>
|
