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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
> <berrange redhat com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2012 06:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>> On 25.09.2012 10:58, Dmitry Fleytman wrote:
>>>>>> This patch fixes incorrect help screen parsing for QEMU 1.0.1 package
>>>>>> Version line changed from
>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>> To
>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0,1 (qemu-kvm-1.0.1), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>> This seems like a bug to me. If it is a micro version number, why is it
>>>>> delimited with comma instead of dot? If it is not a micro version
>>>>> number, can we threat it like it is?
>>>> I agree, it smells very much like a QEMU/distro bug to me.
>>> It is an upstream bug:
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg02527.html
>>> Distros should probably be backporting that particular patch, but
>>> there's still the question of whether we should deal with it in libvirt
>>> because it is upstream.
>> Well it is a bug on only one branch of upstream, that was promptly
>> fixed, so I still don't think we should complicate libvirt by dealing
>> with it. It is trivial for QEMU maintainers to fix
>> Daniel
>> --
> FWIW, the raw tarball from qemu.org still contains the bug. They
> didn't reissue the tarball. First commit on the list here:
> http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/1.0

[CC'ing QEMU devel list]

Maybe QEMU guys can reissue the tarball since Fedora (and probably other
distros as well) is using this tarball when building a package?
Or is it distro's business to backport the patch?


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