On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 07:00:36PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > but you haven't brought >> > anything forward to support that "ugly hack" statement in this specific >> > case, >> >> #ifdef based solution is going to be ugly, surely you know that. I >> never made any claims about the magnitude of ugliness, I always want >> to avoid ugly hacks whenever possible. > > If it just requires 2 or 3 #ifdef, adding them and forgetting they > existed would have been faster than this thread ;) I agree but I want to clarify how we intend to proceed about this in future. I'm fine with 2 or 3 but with this kind of extremely strict definition of "too new libvirt dep", we'd need to keep on doing this and before you know it, we'll have lots of these ugly hacks. >> > nor any hard data regarding which distros could be impacted by a >> > req bump. I'll stop this discussion until you bring some concrete >> > datapoints to the table. >> >> Fair enough! The main point of this discussion was not to convince you >> but rather to get a third opinion. > > Honestly, this is a very weird attitude, rather than trying to > come with hard facts, you prefer having some kind of poll and make an > arbitary uninformed decision. I regret having to resort to some sort of poll as well but this is not a purely objective discussion. I did present arguments but you maintain that I did not. So let's leave at that, shall we? I'll just proceed as Dan tell me to. It's his project in the end. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ________________________________________ Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list