On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:41:19PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I don't think that's much of an argument. Plenty of things can be > > considered fundamental. My kernel version certainly is, so why isn't > > libvirt letting me upgrade that? What about my firewall? Why isn't > > libvirt configuring my iSCSI target for me? > > The kernel version isn't fundamental to the task of provisioning and > configuring a guest VM. When deploying a VM there is no general > requirement to upgrade the host kernel. When deploying a VM there > very much is a requirement to configure physical resources in the > host such as storage, and networking. So it sounds like you think libvirt /should/ be going out and configuring shared storage. What about VLAN set up on my router hardware? That too, right? > The existance of many different impls is exactly the reason for libvirt > to have this capability. Libvirt is providing a consistent mgmt API No - it's exactly the reason for SOME common API. No-one is arguing that a common API for host networking is a bad idea. "There isn't an API, and it's sometimes needed for management" is not an argument for it be part of libvirt's scope. Again, what makes libvirt a good place for this management? I don't accept "because it's there" as a reasonable justification... regards, john -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list