On 05/13/2010 04:35 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 05/12/10 22:48, Cole Robinson wrote: >> I agree libvirt's method is a crappy approach. Adding a proper -version >> argument is certainly the way forward, but doesn't help users with >> existing libvirt installations that want to use latest qemu. This is the >> type of issue that libvirt devs will be fielding for months. Ideally i'd >> like the order to be: >> >> 1) Apply this patch >> 2) Add a proper -version argument, maybe named -version_num >> 3) libvirt patched to use new version argument (and robustify legacy >> version parsing) >> 4) Some reasonable amount of time from now (6 months, a year?), edit the >> current -version string at will >> >> I'd be willing to do 2 and 3 if people agree. > > Hi Cole, > > I think rather than 1, it would be better to add a patch to libvirt to > catch both formats. I know Chris Lalancette already cooked up a patch > for this. Combined with the 2) patch I just posted, and 3) I think that > should take care of the problems. >
It doesn't solve the problem for existing libvirt installations. It's not uncommon for users to track just the latest kvm releases without upgrading libvirt: any future qemu or kvm release will break every version of libvirt that exists today. Given that unfortunate case, I still recommend reverting the 'PC' change at least for long enough for a few fixed libvirt releases to make it into the wild. - Cole
