From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZiaB-0005QE-SJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:00:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZiaA-0001Xt-2H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:00:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26394) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZia9-0001Xd-Hn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:00:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4E032AC5.2080709@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:00:05 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E023A9D.9010205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110623092954.GA2682@bow.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: Qemu Guest Tools ISO List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: agl@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Michael Roth , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Anthony Liguori , pmyers@redhat.com, bsarathy@redhat.com On 06/23/2011 02:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alon Levy wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 01:55:25PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > >> Goal: > >> > >> Provide a mechanism, similar to vmware and virtualbox guest tools > >> ISOs, that allows us to easily distribute guest tools (and > >> potentially drivers) for linux and windows guests. > > > > What would be the advantage for linux guests, with their package managers already > > handling this task? I see how it would make testing easier with various linux > > distributions, but for management I wonder if it won't be easier to use the > > package management system to update the guests same as the hosts. > > If the guest tools come from the host QEMU we don't need complicated > compatibility testing and fallbacks. Guest and host will be in sync > and support the same features. > Even building the tools would be very hard. In general if you build against libc version y, you cannot expect your code to work against libc version y-1, unless you take special measures. With other libraries the "special measures" may not even be possible. (I'm assuming statically linking the binaries is out of the question) -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function