On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:49:45 +0200 Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/24/2010 06:42 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:42:16 +0200 > > Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> So, at best qemud is a toy for people who are annoyed by libvirt. > >> > > Is the reason for doing this in qemu because libvirt is annoying? > > Mostly. > > > I don't see > > how adding yet another layer/daemon is going to improve ours and user's life > > (the same applies for libqemu). > > > > libvirt becomes optional. I think it should only be optional if all you want is to run a single VM in this case what seems to be missing on our side is a _real_ GUI, bundled with QEMU potentially written in a high-level language. Then we make virt-manager optional and this is good because we can sync features way faster and we don't have to care about _managing_ several VMs, our world in terms of usability and maintainability is about one VM. IMVHO, everything else should be done by third-party tools like libvirt, we just provide the means for it. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list