On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:56:19PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 09.02.2016 13:52, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 12:07:43PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > >> Dear list, > >> > >> I've noticed a failed build on CentOS-6 after some commits. Problem was > >> that old gcc is not wise enough and produces a false positive. I've > >> proposed a patch for that [1] but honestly, neither am I - like Peter - > >> very fond of this approach. We should not try to fix a good code because > >> of some spurious warnings. Moreover if they happen on a system that is > >> considered stable and thus nobody should run recent libvirt on it. > >> > >> In RHEL-6/CentOS-6 there's libvirt-0.10.2 which is 3.5 years old now. > >> > >> I'm starting this thread so that the decision and discussion is clear > >> and not buried under discussion to the patch. > >> > >> If we happen to stop caring we probably should stop our CentOS-6 build > >> in jenkins too [2]. > > > > IMHO it is well premature to stop caring about RHEL-6. We only just > > dropped support for RHEL-5, but RHEL-6 is very much still a widely > > used platform and will continue to be so for a good while yet. > > Sure, but I'm not talking about downstream support rather than upstream > one. Or are you saying that nor upstream should drop RHEL-6? I'm talking about upstream too. Libvirt is *not* about only supporting the latest cutting edge distros. We aim to support a broad range of distros that are currently widely in use. RHEL-6 most certainly falls under that umbrella, and upstream libvirt must *not* drop it as a targetted platform. 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