On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:24:38 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 27 April 2018 at 17:17, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 27.04.2018 17:51, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Hi; I usually let people forget about releases for a month or > >> so before bringing this topic up, but: > >> > >> (1) do we want to call the next release 2.13, or something else? > >> There's no particular reason to bump to 3.0 except some > >> combination of > >> * if we keep going like this we'll get up to 2.42, which starts to > >> get silly > >> * Linus-style "avoid being too predictable" > >> * triskaidekaphobia > > > > and maybe: > > > > * Celebrate 15 years of QEMU > > Oh, hey, I hadn't noticed that. That's as good a reason as > any other! > > > By the way, just another crazy idea for v3.0 (i.e. feel free to > > turn it down immediately ;-)): Since compilation and testing time > > for QEMU is really huge, what do you think if we got rid of some > > QEMU binaries? qemu-system-aarch64 is a superset of > > qemu-system-arm, qemu-system-x86_64 is a superset of > > qemu-system-i386 and qemu-system-ppc64 is a superset of > > qemu-system-ppc (and qemu-system-ppcemb). Would be feasible to get > > rid of the subset binaries with some work? (I think they were > > especially useful on 32-bit machines in the past, but most people > > are using 64-bit machines nowadays, aren't they?). > > I think Markus' backward-compatibility rubber chicken may prevent > us from removing those executables... At least the PPC vs PPC64 default to different BIOS, machine type, etc. That could be achieved by a wrapper script around the 64bit binary I suppose. Is there any reason why the 64bit emulator would not run on 32bit system? The emulated 64bit system is .. emulated after all. Thanks Michal
