On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:42:35AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 17:33:52 +0000, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > The patches for introducing virtlogd will be significantly > > simplified if we don't need to worry about parsing stderr > > during startup. This is required prior to QEMU 0.11 so > > that we can get the dyanamically allocated /dev/pty/NNN > > paths. > > I'm so glad to see something like this. Not only to simplify adding > virtlogd but also we will be able to remove some _very_ old cruft. > > > The QEMU 0.12.1 release was shipped in RHEL-6 vintage > > distros and is already quite old, so seems like a fair > > target version to aim for as the minimum required. > > I'd like to add that I think this is still too vintage. It's now almost > 6 years from that point: > > commit 6c412ddf1cc0c41a7c36064a4a9c428e99c52ff8 > Author: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Dec 19 08:23:00 2009 -0600 > > Update for 0.12.0 release > > and right after that: > > > commit fe1b69708c72b163d3acdf2bb012e169d2d3dda0 > Author: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Dec 19 19:31:18 2009 -0600 > > Update version and changelog for 0.12.1 > > The initial qemu version in RHEL-6 was indeed 0.12.1, but if you look at > the current state of it you'll notice that it was patched quite a lot so > it rather stopped to resemble the 0.12 release and was really holding up > with upstream for quite a while. Libvirt was even rebased during the > current lifetime of rhel/centos 6 distros to 0.10.2 (and it has quite a > few patches on top of that too). Libvirt 0.10.2 was released almost 3 > years after qemu 0.12.0: Although QEMU 0.12.1 in RHEL6 is heavily patched with feature backports, when picking a target min version, I'm really lookng at the approximate "vintage" rather than the specific featureset of RHEL6 QEMU. As another benchmark of the same vintage, Debian Squeeze has QEMU 0.12.5. I just round off the micro version, so pick 0.12.0. > commit f8fbeb50d52520a109d71c8566fed2ea600650ec > Author: Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Sep 24 12:06:05 2012 +0800 > > Release of libvirt-0.10.2 > > So while having rhel-6 as a support target might look cool, nobody would > actually use such old code anyways, since they can get tested and > patched packages with a ton of new features. I am rather conservative about pushing min versions, since IME many corporates tend to stick with ancient versions of software for much longer than people tend to realize. At this time RHEL-6 is almost certainly the largest deployment / user base for libvirt / QEMU out of all the RHEL versions. It will be a while before RHEL-7 overtakes it to become the dominant RHEL platform. As such I think it is important that libvirt upstream continue to be buildable against RHEL-6 and target the QEMU 0.12.x series that includes (even though RHEL6 QEMU is rather a frakenmonster of backports at this time) Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list