Am Dienstag 12 Januar 2010 schrieb Simon Boulay: > On 01/12/2010 02:29 PM, Alexander Duscheleit wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:03 +0100 > > > > Simon Boulay<simon.boulay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 01/12/2010 07:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >>>> 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. > > > > I didn't look at them until now, but yes, at 5 MB vs 56 MB this makes > > sense. > > > >> The size differs because qemu-kvm doesn't build all targets by > >> default unlike qemu. If you build qemu-kvm with ./configure > >> --target-list="" both packages will be the same size... > >> AFAIK the difference between the two is in the kvm implementation. > >> qemu-kvm is far more advanced in this area (support more targets, > >> ksm, and certainly many other things regarding the amount of code > >> differences). > > > > *This* was what i was looking for. I couldn't really find anything > > published about the differences between the two different releases in > > any prominent place. > > Me neither... I found this: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge > and Fedora package source here: > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/qemu/devel/ > If you really want all things build from qemu-kvm you can still use abs for this task. In the early days of kvm, qemu-kvm was always more bleeding edge than qemu. As i said, i'll keep the packages as they are now. If more info is provided which one will dropped upstream we can switch to this and remove the other package. 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.
