Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Potential to increase min required libvirt version to 0.9.8 ?

2013-11-20 Thread Ralf Haferkamp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:33:22PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 20 November 2013 08:02, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > Currently the Nova libvirt driver is declaring that it wants a minimum > > of libvirt 0.9.6. > ... > > If there are other distros I've missed which expect to support deploymen

Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Potential to increase min required libvirt version to 0.9.8 ?

2013-11-20 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:50:03PM +1100, Tom Fifield wrote: > On 20/11/13 14:33, Robert Collins wrote: > >On 20 November 2013 08:02, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>Currently the Nova libvirt driver is declaring that it wants a minimum > >>of libvirt 0.9.6. > >... > >>If there are other distros I'v

Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Potential to increase min required libvirt version to 0.9.8 ?

2013-11-19 Thread Tom Fifield
On 20/11/13 14:33, Robert Collins wrote: On 20 November 2013 08:02, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Currently the Nova libvirt driver is declaring that it wants a minimum of libvirt 0.9.6. ... If there are other distros I've missed which expect to support deployment of Icehouse please add them to t

Re: [openstack-dev] RFC: Potential to increase min required libvirt version to 0.9.8 ?

2013-11-19 Thread Robert Collins
On 20 November 2013 08:02, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Currently the Nova libvirt driver is declaring that it wants a minimum > of libvirt 0.9.6. ... > If there are other distros I've missed which expect to support deployment > of Icehouse please add them to this list. Hopefully there won't be any

[openstack-dev] RFC: Potential to increase min required libvirt version to 0.9.8 ?

2013-11-19 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
Currently the Nova libvirt driver is declaring that it wants a minimum of libvirt 0.9.6. For cases where we use features newer than this, we have to do conditional logic to ensure we operate correctly on old libvirt. We don't want to keep adding conditionals forever since they complicate the code