On 11/08/2012 08:26 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: >>> I'm still not thrilled that you're pushing forward with requiring 2.63 >>> + a few patches backported from 2.64 into 2.63 and only checking >>> against 2.63. >> > My point is if you're going to add a check for 2.63 > but really require 2.63 + 3 patches that Fedora has backported into > their 2.63 version which was your original proposal, this would cause > lots of headaches for every other distro out there unless they > backported those very same patches into 2.63. So better to wait for > 2.64 and go forward from there. libvirt works on and targets many more > systems than Fedora. Agreed. Upstream, libvirt should require 2.64. If Fedora (or any other distro) cares about shipping 2.63 + patches, then they can also patch their backport of libvirt to relax things to 2.63. But upstream cannot assume that 2.63 is patched. -- 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