From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6He-00035q-S5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:36:54 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6Hd-000354-7g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:36:54 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41770 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LV6Hd-000350-3y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:36:53 -0500 Received: from hobi.com ([130.94.185.247]:1428) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LV6Hc-0002OX-Hy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:36:52 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO ricklap.localnet) ([68.23.60.237]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.185.247 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Feb 2009 15:36:51 -0000 From: Rick Vernam Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Cutting a new QEMU release Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:36:49 -0600 References: <1233825194.6637.4.camel@ecrins.fosdick.home.net> <498AF6FC.90803@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <498AF6FC.90803@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902050936.49909.rickv@hobi.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thursday 05 February 2009 8:26:04 am Anthony Liguori wrote: > kqemu is unsupported and unmaintained. Interesting. When did it fall into that status? The Maintainers file shows Fabrice as the maintainer of kqemu. I suppose that needs to be updated? I see Fabrice released 1.4.0pre1 on May 30th, 2008, although I never did see anything declaring it unsupported (I'm not suggesting it was never declared, just that I never saw any such declaration). Are there any plans to support it in the future? This really is quite a shock to me, actually. I know qemu has a wide range of uses - but for me and surely others, virtualization is a primary use. To the best of my knowledge, kvm requires hardware support - where does this leave the class of users who need virtualization & don't have hardware virtualization support? Are we no longer the a target audience of qemu? If not, fine, but apparently a statement needs to be made... Also, I had considered the web site at http://bellard.org/qemu/ to be accurate. Perhaps something should be done prior to a release so that those who browse to the site know that: 1 - the site is not an accurate source of information or 2 - kqemu is no longer supported or maintained Thanks -Rick > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >