Chris Lalancette writes ("Re: xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I'm not sure
> > this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there's an ABI compatibility
> > requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both
> > the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together.
>
> In theory, yes. However, the problem ends up being that we can't
> force people to reboot to the new kernel, so what happens in
> practice is that people update their kernel + userspace API, don't
> reboot, and then wonder why things don't work anymore.
Right.
Having separate 3.2 packages available from a different place would
avoid that problem because a user would have to go out of their way to
choose to get it, rather than just taking the updates in the usual
way.
So would it be best for Xensource to build and publish those packages
based on Fedora 8 srpms or do you have somewhere at Fedora for this
kind of thing (effectively a backport) ?
Ian.
--
Fedora-xen mailing list
Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
