On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 21:49 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 19:27 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: > > > >> ok but now as qemu code was imported into kvm, then it's probably would > >> be better to witch gcc-4.x? > > > > Sure. Are you volunteering? ;) I'm sure both upstream QEMU developers, > > KVM developers, and the community using either would be most > > appreciative. I know I would be. > > here i mean that packaging kvm for fedora/redhat/centos using gcc-4.x in > stead of gcc-3.x. if currently there is no reason to use gcc-3.x than i > change all of my spec file.
You *could*, sure. I have done this for local builds here. But if you go that route I would recommend making a patch to KVM so it doesn't fall back into QEMU mode automatically (today if it can't open the kvm module it will assume "-no-kvm" like behavior). Otherwise you will have a bunch of support calls about why its not working properly should someone cause the system to fall back. > > ps. anyway it's planed to be temporary or permanent to use a qemu fork > for kvm and not try to propagate changes back to the upstream qemu? Ill defer to Avi here, though as I understand it: Things that benefit the upstream source get pushed...things that are KVM only don't. Regards, -Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
