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