On 08/01/2012 01:18 PM, Guido Günther wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:00:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >> With 0.10.0-rc0 out the door, we are committed to the next version >> number. >> >> * src/libvirt_public.syms (LIBVIRT_0.9.14): Rename... >> (LIBVIRT_0.10.0): ...to this. >> * docs/formatdomain.html.in: Fix fallout. >> * src/openvz/openvz_driver.c (openvzDriver): Likewise. >> * src/remote/remote_driver.c (remote_driver): Likewise. >> --- >> >> I almost pushed this under the trivial rule, but realized that >> anyone that builds an app against rc0 will be binary incompatible >> with the .so post-patch. Are we okay declaring that rc0 is >> unsupported so the ABI break is okay, or do I need to respin >> the .syms portion of this patch to keep the LIBVIRT_0.9.14 >> label even though we had no 0.9.14 release? > > If rc1 won't be too far in the future (so it can be pushed into distros) > just changing the symbol names is probably good enough. DV said that rc1 might be as much as 3 weeks away. If distros want to push rc0 out the door, and we decide to go with this patch as-is, then distros should backport this patch on top of rc0 for minimal pain. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list