On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:33:10PM +0000, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:04AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > > >We're already doing this internally for Xen. In theory, it shouldn't be > > > >too much harder to do the same with libvirt. Ryan? > > > > > > The biggest problem would be dealing with incoming patches that conflict > > > with our internal patches. In particular, anything changing a Makefile > > > would probably cause conflicts that I'd have to manually fix. > > > > Then the question is why do you have to maintain internal patches, > > please raise the problems, even for things like makefiles we should > > be able to have a single source version for all platforms. > > We absolutely agree. Unfortunately it takes time to clean up patches and > submit them. There are also some things that aren't quite mergable. (For > example, in our current bits, 'freecell' just plain didn't work, so we > disabled it until we could investigate the real problem). Could be related to the level of xen used, I think they went upstream in 3.2.0, the version we have in RHEL is a backport. Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list