On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 12:51 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 06/06/2018 11:44 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > The lxc route sounds like a decent stop-gap measure until either > > the current box is upgraded or everything is moved off to a new > > box running CentOS 7, whenever that might be. > > I think this is actually the right solution. To either upgrade old box > to CentOS 7 or to move to new box running it. Of course it is. We're talking stop-gap measures here :) > Another idea that I had was to not require GnuTLS-3.2.0 every time. I > mean, what are the reasons we want GnuTLS? For better TLS in general > (where it makes sense to require 3.2.0 or newer) and for PRNG (where > 1.2.0 or what is it that CentOS 6 has is sufficient). So what I am > suggesting is loosen the minimal requirement to whatever version CentOS > 6 has unless remote/qemu drivers are built in which case 3.2.0 or newer > is required. If that doesn't end up looking *too* disgusting it's certainly a possiblity. I still like the container route better because, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it would allow us to drop CentOS 6 entirely from the CI environment. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
