On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:01:05PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I've not decided yet on wether to name the hypervisor '/boot/xen.gz' or > > include a full version '/boot/xen-3.2.0.gz', or version + release > > '/boot/xen-3.2.0-1.fc9'. I think i'll probably go for 'xen-3.2.0.gz' > > I would definitely include the hypervisor version in future; I'm less > sure about the package version. Since Kier has said that each bug-fix series 3.1.x and 3.2.x maintain hypervisor <-> ABI compatability, I reckon we should name the hypervisor according to this version, so '/boot/xen-3.1.gz' and '/boot/xen-3.2.gz'. That way people can update the minor releases 3.2.0, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, etc and not have to worry about changing grub configs. > Debian have a very nice arrangement which lets you co-install > different hypervisor and tools versions, and then effectively > dual-boot. Unfortunately their patches are very intrusive so that > won't be in 3.2.0, but I think we certainly want to move in that > direction upstream in the future (probably with different changes to > achieve the same effect, rather than trying to import and redact > Debian's patchset). Personally I'd like to see upstream get serious about Hypervisor <-> Tools ABI compatability. If you look at the changes in ABI from 3.1 to 3.2 trees it would have been pretty trivial to maintain compatability for new 3.2 hypervisor against old 3.1 tools. This is an idea that's been rejected many times before, but I'd still like to see it. cf new Linux releases don't break glibc each time. Then we could finally get out of the lock-step upgrades.. 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
