On 01/21/2016 04:32 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> I'm a developer, not a server admin, so I can't gauge how important
> this issue is. Before making such a change, I'd like to hear opinions
> from other people in the community about how important (or not) it is
> to avoid breaking xm, given the ample warning (>1 year) users have
> had.
>
> On the other hand, explicitly moving to a "xen${VER}" (both for C6 and
> C7) would make it simpler for people to step up and maintain older
> versions in parallel if anybody wanted to do so.
My inclination is towards a naming scheme like xen46, xen48, etc + a meta package that always depends on the latest. It should be more obvious when
there's a major upgrade, and those who can't afford a major upgrade can uninstall the meta package.
For the record, we have no particular desire for xen 4.4 but haven't done enough testing to say xen 4.6 is good yet.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
