On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:57:06PM +0000, John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:53:37AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > None of this exists in upstream XenD. As a general rule unless it is in > > upstream XenD, then we shouldn't include it in libvirt. That said, I > > Oh come on. Hacks for RHEL5 are OK, but anyone else has changes in their > system and it's not? Whatever happened to libvirt not being lowest > common denominator? The changes put in RHEL5 are *backports* of existing features in upstream Xen, so we know the changes there are not going to conflict with what upstream Xen does in the future. The libvirt changes we just enabling existing Xen code in libvirt, to work with earlier versions of Xen. If there were RHEL-5 Xen features which were not already upstream in a newer Xen version, we wouldn't include them in libvirt (they wouldn't be in RHEL-5 Xen anyway, because we don't add stuff there unless it is already in upstream Xen). Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list