Am Dienstag 12 Januar 2010 schrieb Alexander Duscheleit: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:07:19 +0100 > > Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Sonntag 10 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay: > > > On 01/10/2010 09:48 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > > > Am Samstag 09 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay: > > > >> On 01/09/2010 09:09 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > > >>> Am Samstag 09 Januar 2010 schrieb Dan McGee: > > > >>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Tobias > > > >>>> Powalowski<t.powa@xxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > Yes will change the install message. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Yes there is no mention in the changelogs, really strange. > > > >>>>>> greetings > > > >>>>>> tpowa > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ok like this? > > > >>>>> echo ">>> Since kernel 2.6.29:" > > > >>>>> echo ">>> Qemu package now provides standard qemu with > > > >>>>> kvm enabled." echo "" > > > >>>>> echo ">>> PLEASE READ FOR KVM USAGE!" > > > >>>>> echo ">>> Load the correct KVM module, you will need a > > > >>>>> KVM capable CPU!" echo ">>> Add yourself to the group > > > >>>>> 'kvm'." echo ">>> Use 'qemu --enable-kvm' to use KVM." > > > >>>>> echo "" > > > >>>>> echo "With the release of qemu and qemu-kvm 0.12.X, the > > > >>>>> kqemu kernel module" echo "is no longer supported and will be > > > >>>>> removed from the repositories. You" echo "can safely > > > >>>>> uninstall it from your system." > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Can we put some vercmp checks around messages like this? That > > > >>>> way people only have to see them once (when they upgrade the > > > >>>> first time to a 0.12.x version for the second message). The > > > >>>> first message should really be a post_install message. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> And with all that said, why are there two packages in extra if > > > >>>> "qemu package now provides standard qemu with kvm enabled"? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -Dan > > > >>> > > > >>> Yes sure i can add those vercmp stuff. > > > >>> qemu and qemu-kvm is different. > > > >>> qemu-kvm is only for kvm while qemu provides much more > > > >>> machines to emulate. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure about that. Both seems to share the same code for > > > >> machine emulation; only the kvm stuff is different. In fedora > > > >> 12, they build kvm and qemu-system-xxx from qemu-kvm 0.11. But I > > > >> don't know how this will evolve in the future. > > > >> If qemu and qemu-kvm are used for different purposes, one may > > > >> need to install both apps side by side but that's not possible > > > >> in archlinux. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > qemu is for those who need more different emulation types. > > > > qemu-kvm is only for 86 emulation with kvm hardware support. > > > > Both differ in files you would need to hack bios file destination > > > > etc. I don't see any need to install both at the same time. > > > > > > Because one may want to use x86 emulation with kvm hardware support > > > and qemu-system-arm for example on the same machine. > > > It is possible to build all targets with qemu-kvm but that's not the > > > default and I don't know if that'll be the case for future release. > > > For 0.11 release, qemu and qemu-kvm seems to converge, but with 0.12 > > > that's not so clear (at least to me). As I understand it, the > > > development of platform emulation is done in qemu and kvm > > > virtualization is done in qemu-kvm (even if qemu has some kvm > > > support) but the qemu repository is regularly merged in qemu-kvm. I > > > don't find any official statement about that, so... > > > > normal qemu supports kvm too, just use --enable-kvm start parameter. > > So no need to install qemu-kvm. > > greetings > > tpowa > > In this light, what actually is qemu-kvm good for? We don't split > packges for -src, -devel, but for startup-parameters? > > If there is no other difference then a few more binaries (which as far > as i know doesn't justify another package) why not kill qemu-kvm > alltogether and include something like /usr/bin/kvm: > > ---8<--- > #!/bin/bash > qemu --enable-kvm $* > --->8--- > > When I tested both packages here qemu with --enable-kvm *felt* a little > slower when running XP, but that's a) entirely subjective and b) I > dodn't test identical workloads. > > So, again, what is the reason for there being a qemu-kvm package, when > it is apparently a subset of the qemu package? > > Greetings, > jinks > The size of the package differs enormous. I'll keep both. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
