On 08/24/2012 03:57 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> Everything is ready in both netcf and libvirt to switch over to libnl3
> in future releases of both Fedora and RHEL. This needs to be done more
> or less simultaneously in both packages, though, because you can't mix
> libnl1.1 and libnl3 in the same process (e.g. libvirtd using
> libnl-3.so and libnetcf.so, while libnetcf.so uses libnl.so)
>
> This patch does two things when fedora >= 18 || rhel >= 7):
>
> 1) requires libnl3-devel
> 2) requires netcf-devel-0.2.2 or greater
>
> (the idea is that a similar patch is going into netcf's specfile, so
> that when a build of netcf is done on F18 or later (or RHEL7 or later)
> netcf will be guaranteed to be built with libnl3 rather than
> libnl-1.1)
> ---
> libvirt.spec.in | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
Makes sense - you have my ACK from a review standpoint, although I'd at
least like to test a build against the netcf package from F18
updates-testing if we have time to do that before DV cuts the 0.10.0
release.
> +
> %if %{with_netcf}
> +%if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
> +BuildRequires: netcf-devel >= 0.2.2
> +%else
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 16 || 0%{?rhel} >= 6
> BuildRequires: netcf-devel >= 0.1.8
Question - should we _also_ be stating that on F17, netcf must be less
than 0.2.2? I don't know if the specfile format allows you to specify a
version window, or if it even makes sense (I'm guessing that 'yum
update' will detect the .so conflict even if we don't specify a maximum
version, if you try to rebuild too-new netcf on an older Fedora). So I
don't think this comment requires you to make any changes.
--
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