On 05/14/2010 10:02 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/14/2010 09:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
It is preferable to query the explicit capability wanted, because
version numbers are useless when distros backport feat
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:52:53AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 09:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >
> >It is preferable to query the explicit capability wanted, because
> >version numbers are useless when distros backport features,
>
> Unless distros add their own release numb
On 05/14/2010 09:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
It is preferable to query the explicit capability wanted, because
version numbers are useless when distros backport features,
Unless distros add their own release number to the version information
and libvirt learns about the features they add
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:22:55AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 08:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:24:09AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >>On 05/13/2010 08:07 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 05/13/10 15:04, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>
On 05/14/2010 08:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:24:09AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/13/2010 08:07 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 05/13/10 15:04, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 05/13/2010 04:35 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 05/12/10 22:48, C
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:24:09AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 08:07 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >On 05/13/10 15:04, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >
> >>On 05/13/2010 04:35 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 05/12/10 22:48, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>>I think rather than 1, it woul
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:17:50AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 03:48 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >On 05/12/2010 04:38 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >
> >>On 05/12/10 22:29, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Commit f75ca1ae205f24dae296c82d534c37746f87232f changed the version
> >>>s
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:20:39PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Fully agree.
>
> I think even better line would be 'QEMU System Emulator..'.
Silly idea perhaps, but why not include the target name, e.g. 'QEMU i386
System Emulator'? It only seems reasonable to me for the different
binaries to produ
On 5/13/10, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > But that is no different from what we have today. Users who update their
> > > qemu and see issues with libvirt can also be asked to update libvirt. I
> > > have already had several cases where I needed to do that anyway.
> >
> > The general policy of QEMU h
> > But that is no different from what we have today. Users who update their
> > qemu and see issues with libvirt can also be asked to update libvirt. I
> > have already had several cases where I needed to do that anyway.
>
> The general policy of QEMU has been to try and avoid known breakage of
On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:21:02 +0100
"Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > On 05/13/10 15:04, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > > On 05/13/2010 04:35 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > >> On 05/12/10 22:48, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > >> I think rather than 1,
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/13/10 15:04, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > On 05/13/2010 04:35 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> On 05/12/10 22:48, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >> I think rather than 1, it would be better to add a patch to libvirt to
> >> catch both formats. I
12 matches
Mail list logo
