On 11/08/2012 01:55 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > 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. Really I don't think that *anybody* should. There's no way to verify that it's true. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list