On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:44:26PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 03:13:54PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:57:19PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:08:11PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > So, 'yum install libvirt' would end up pulling in every single hypervisor > > > > we support (qemu, qemu-kvm, xen), which is not at all what we want. > > > > > > > > Separating the libvirt-daemon-XXX packages from the libvirt-daemon-driver-XXX > > > > packages is key to achieving the goal of minimising install footprint, while > > > > maintaining backwards compatibility with existing RPM deps. > > > > > > I still wonder if it is worth it then. Adding an extra empty rpm just > > > for the sake or avoiding a explicit hypervisor dependency at the > > > application level. The whole scheme adds N + 1 empty rpms just for > > > avoiding that dep that the application need to explicitely state right > > > now anyway. > > > > I think it is worth it, based on the fact that we get reasonably > > frequent bug reports that installing libvirt did not install qemu-kvm, > > or similar. > > In practice now we ask people to install 'qemu-kvm' directly > With the change we ask people to install 'libvirt-kvm' instead, Almost. Currently we ask to install 'libvirt' and 'qemu-kvm', now we just need to install 'libvirt-daemon-kvm'. > I don't see such an huge improvement to be honnest, basically ths means > that people must select the hypervisor at some point, whether it's > at the base os install vs. at the libvirt install. 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