Well I for one am going to need to find or make an RPM building system, as our company likes clean production servers without 'from source' builds, so the Sys-Admins can cleanly manage the farm.
I do understand the decision to remove the libvirt code, however I too hope we can put together good documentation or something, that enables a smoother transition for KVM users. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, John Kinsella <j...@stratosec.co> wrote: > So basically for a good portion of CloudStack users, we're removing > functionality that they're currently using. > > Do we have any idea what percentage of CS users compile from source vs use > packaged versions? How many users of the packaged product will decide to > switch to a different platform where they don't have to jump through hoops to > get it to work? > > If we go this route, and some third party happens to be packaging CS builds > with kvm support enabled, would/could the Apache CloudStack download page > provide a link to that? > > I know this has been discussed from a legal/engineering POV, but I'm > envisioning some amount of teeth gnashing, just wondering the best way to > handle it…I don't want to see headlines "CloudStack removes support for KVM" > which is what the more dramatic will say. > > John > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Edison Su wrote: > >> As kvm code depends on libvirt-java, which is incompatible with Apache >> license. I want to move it to plugin folder as we already did for other >> hypervisors, and add a compile option to turn on/off KVM compilation. By >> default, it's turned off. >> If you have any patches against agent/kvm code, please check them in ASAP. I >> want to start the moving in Friday. >> Any comments? >> > >
