On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:24:08PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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) ?
No, we don't have any separate backports repository, so hosting it on xen.org
would be the best bet.
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
--
Fedora-xen mailing list
Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
