On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:20:02PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Going back on what I said a few hours ago.... > > On closer inspection, I re-discovered that we have already taken > the approach of conditionally compiling code in libvirt-gobject > to avoid increasing the min libvirt. So given this, I would like > to avoid increasing the min required libvirt in the release we're > about to do today for benefit of GNOME boxes. > > I think we can still have a valid discussion about increasing > the min libvirt after this release is done, since I think that > 0.10.2 is really far too old. It is based on RHEL-6 vintage > libvirt and that's not really useful due to lack of gobject > introspection. Yes, especially with the dep on glib 2.36 (released in March 2013) which is fairly new compared to libvirt 0.10.2 (just checked, it's only 6 months older than glib 2.36 actually). > > So to clarify, I think we should set a clear policy on what > platforms we're going to target going forward. This will let > us make an easy & clear decision about when a patch needs to > use the conditional compilation approach. Fine with me, I agree with the targets you mentioned in your other email (ie RHEL 7.0 and other distros from the same timeframe). We'll probably want to make that "the el7 release or equivalent which was current N yeras before/N releases before the latest", as by the time we reach RHEL 7.7, 7.0 will be much less relevant imo. Christophe
Attachment:
pgp1NwPvJXrJS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list