On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 04:28:11PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > IOW, I think the problem needs to be raised & addressed in context of > > > the Fedora and systemd communities, rather than having libvirt diverge > > > from normal Feora packaging practice. > > > > I absolutely agree with you, and I fully intend to push for these > > changes (or comparable ones) to be implemented in systemd, where they > > belong and from where they can benefit more than just us. > > > > That said, timing is a concern. Fedora 38 and RHEL 9.2 are both on > > libvirt 9.0.0 at the moment, so they haven't been hit by the issue > > yet, but new releases for both are just around the corner and I have > > little confidence that we'd be able to push the necessary changes > > through in time. So a local solution seems like the only plausible > > way that we can avoid breaking user's deployments. > > If we at least start the discussion, we can get feedback on whether the > idea is likely to gain traction, or there are other things we have > overlooked I can open an issue on the systemd side pointing to these patches, but polishing things up to the level of a proper PR is off the table right now because I simply can't allocate enough time for it. Would you consider that good enough to move forward with the libvirt changes? On the Fedora side, I wouldn't know what forum would be the most appropriate to get the discussion started. Any pointers? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
