Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.ot...@profitbricks.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02=44=14PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 26 March 2015 at 14:37, Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.ot...@profitbricks.com> >> wrote: >> > I completely understand your concern. Perhaps a ping on libseccomp >> > Fedora package maintainer would be a better way to tackle this issue >> > instead of reverting this commit. Libseccomp 2.2.0 is released since Feb >> > 12th and I actually gave it a little time frame for other distros to >> > update their packages so we don't run into issues like this. >> >> Well, we shouldn't really be mandating latest-and-greatest versions >> of our upstream dependencies unless the maintainer of those dependencies >> feels the earlier versions are so badly broken that it would be better >> to refuse to use them at all. >> >> > It's important to remember that this patch is also the proper fix for >> > this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1363641 >> >> If that only applies to certain architectures we can make the >> dependency version vary depending on which arch we're building >> for, I suppose. >> > > This sounds more like a reasonable approach that could solve the above > mentioned problem and also making virt-test to be able to keep using > this feature as well -- which is also very important in order to get > more important system calls for the whitelist. I'll roll out a new patch > for that. > > Thanks for the idea, Paul. > Sorry for the trouble on your side, Juan.
You are welcome. I was just trying to fix the prob0lem before somebody else hit it O:-) Later, Juan.
