On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:24 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> grub-xen
>
>
> Needs much better docs.
>
> ACTION: I agreed to move the text of my blog post somewhere more
> obvious.
I did this on the last doc day: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/PvGrub2
Ian.
___
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> Stubdomains
>> ===
>>
>> Hard to do in a packaging environment (is really its own partial
>> architecture). Rump kernels are no different in this regard.
>>
>> No clever ideas were put forward.
>
> Honestly what about moving these mo
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 10:24 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Embedding in xen.git
>
>
> We are much better about providing ways to use system-supplied
> components these days (since 4.4) and Debian uses them.
>
> Waldi noted that iPXE did not have such an option. Since that iPXE
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 09:49 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Midlevel library stability
> > ==
> >
> > libxenlight is only API not ABI stable. This is a pain in particular
> > for libvirt which needs binNMU for new Xen package.
> >
> > We would like to eventually offer ABI
On 9/8/15 5:55 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 08.09.15 at 12:49, wrote:
>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Notes from Xen BoF at Debconf15"):
>>> Right - 4.4.3 already was released with just one RC, and indeed I
>>> meant to stay with that
On 9/8/15 4:24 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Xen upstream BoF
>
>
> We had a discussion around Xen and packaging at Debian's annual developer
> conference (Debconf) a few weeks back:
> https://summit.debconf.org/debconf15/meeting/279/xen-upstream-bof/
While I'm not a Debian guy and w
>>> On 08.09.15 at 12:49, wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Notes from Xen BoF at Debconf15"):
>> Right - 4.4.3 already was released with just one RC, and indeed I
>> meant to stay with that model considering the little (if any) feedback
>> we g
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Notes from Xen BoF at Debconf15"):
> Right - 4.4.3 already was released with just one RC, and indeed I
> meant to stay with that model considering the little (if any) feedback
> we get on these RCs. I personally could live without d
>>> On 08.09.15 at 12:15, wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 03:47 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 08.09.15 at 11:24, wrote:
>> > Release cycle
>> > =
>> >
>> > Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would like
>> > to see a release after any large security upd
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 03:47 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 08.09.15 at 11:24, wrote:
> > Release cycle
> > =
> >
> > Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would like
> > to see a release after any large security update.
> >
> > We asked if the RCs for stab
> On 8 Sep 2015, at 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On 08.09.15 at 11:24, wrote:
>> Release cycle
>> =
>>
>> Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would like
>> to see a release after any large security update.
>>
>> We asked if the RCs for stable releases w
>>> On 08.09.15 at 11:24, wrote:
> Release cycle
> =
>
> Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would like
> to see a release after any large security update.
>
> We asked if the RCs for stable releases were valuable, the answer was
> "not so much".
>
> Waldi wo
Xen upstream BoF
We had a discussion around Xen and packaging at Debian's annual developer
conference (Debconf) a few weeks back:
https://summit.debconf.org/debconf15/meeting/279/xen-upstream-bof/
These are my notes, I think there is probably stuff of interest to most
distro peop
13 matches
Mail list logo
