Re: Opinions on removing the old, legacy libvirt Xen driver

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1622 bytes --]

On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 14:25 -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I briefly mentioned this at an evening event during the KVM Forum /
> Xen Dev 
> Summit, but the list is certainly a better place to discuss such a
> topic. What 
> do folks think about finally removing the old, legacy, xend-based
> driver from 
> the libvirt sources?
> 
As little as it is worth, I'd like to send my +1 to this.

> As for downstreams, I doubt anyone is interested in running the last
> several 
> libvirt releases on an old Xen installition with xm/xend, let alone
> libvirt.git 
> master. SUSE, which still supports Xen, has no interest in using a
> new libvirt 
> on older (but still supported) SLES that uses the xm/xend toolstack.
> I struggle 
> to find a good reason to keep any of the old cruft under src/xen/. I
> do think we 
> should keep the xm/sexpr config parsing/formatting code
> src/xenconfig/ since it 
> is useful for converting old xm and sexpr config to libvirt domXML.
> 
I totally agree with this analysis of yours.

And allow me to add that, for example, on Fedora 24, I have xen-4.6.4,
which does not have xm/xend.

And yet it appear I can install
libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-1.3.3.2-1.fc24.x86_64 which would be totally
useless and, from a user perspective, very confusing.

So, again, +1.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel