Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/18/2011 11:36 AM, Jim Fehlig wrote: > >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >>> The xen RPM in Fedora isn't new enough to support libxl builds >>> yet. Disable it until Fedora 16 >>> >>> Q: What actually is the min required Xen ? Is xen 4.0.1 >>> in fact sufficient ? If so I'll change this to s/16/15/ >>> >>> >> Xen 4.0.x contains some "tech preview" libxenlight bits, but it is buggy >> and missing quite a bit of functionality. Xen 4.1.0 is the first release >> with a usable libxenlight IMO. Also, the API changed quite a bit between >> Xen 4.0 and 4.1 and I have not attempted to make the libxl driver work >> with the preview libxenlight. >> > > Can we enhance the configure test (when there is no explicit > --with-libxl) to reject the 4.0.x library, by requiring linking with a > function that only exists in 4.1? > Yep, good suggestion. I'll put together a patch later today. Thanks, Jim -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list