[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fedora-virt] clarifying the fedoraproject wiki "qemu/kvm" features page



On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 14:38 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:16:18PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >  i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
> > > >
> > > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
> > > >
> > > >  first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11,
> > > >should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta
> > > >system?  as in, no outstanding issues?
> > > >
> > > >  next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
> > > >
> > > >  "The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
> > > >
> > > >can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such
> > > >package?  what *should* that say?  perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
> > > >
> > > >  i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but
> > > >i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Could it have been made more obscure?  So now we have to install three 
> > > qemu packages and three bios packages instead of qemu and kvm? 
> > 
> > That's just a package management tooling problem. 
> > 
> > If you use yum, or PackageKit, life is improved because you only have
> > to install *1*  package  per architecture you want:
> > 
> >    yum install qemu-system-x86
> > 
> > 
> > which pulls in all the other bits via dependancies. No one is seriously
> > expecting people to go around doing 'rpm -ivh ' on individual RPMs anymore
> > as its just a complete waste of time
> It is also expected to happen automatically via comp groups if you want to 
> install "Virtualization". Upgrade from F10 -> F11 is also expected to work
> out of the box (please report any bugs!)
> 
> For qemu, it has the nice side effect of not pulling firmwares and binaries
> for architectures emulators you don't want.
> 
> It does not introduce a init script for qemu linux user emulator if you are
> just using system emulator.
> 
> So despite of your concern that Dan already addressed, I believe the situation
> improved quite a bit as a whole.

The items listed above are certainly benefits!  

One question around the packaging.  While I haven't tested yet, I'm
curious about the upgrade path from F-10 to F-11.  Whenever package
names change we sometimes introduce gaps in the package set for
upgrades.  Typically, we resolve these gaps with %obsoletes and %
provides.

Thanks,
James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]