From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60006) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csvwu-0003cU-ES for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:34:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csvwr-0000dd-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:34:32 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:35998) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1csvwr-0000by-43 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:34:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1490726060.3490.34.camel@oracle.com> From: Knut Omang Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:34:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1490474958.11328.86.camel@oracle.com> <1490519798.11328.113.camel@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 17:32 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 26 March 2017 at 10:16, Knut Omang wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 21:15 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 25 March 2017 at 20:49, Knut Omang wrote: > >> > > >> > Can we please keep the Sparc support in for a while still? > >> > >> Yes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz and the Debian Project have > >> kindly provided me with access to a Sparc box. I'm planning > >> to send a patch that puts sparc into the 'supported' > >> category before 2.9 release. > > > > good to hear! >=20 > It occurred to me that it might be helpful to point out that > support of Solaris as a host OS is a separate thing and is > still in the 'unsupported' category.=20 Yes, that's my understanding too, but thanks for highlighting it. > (It's also quite high > on the list of stuff to drop because I suspect it's broken > and it's one of the things making a mess of our configure code.) I agree, and from what I have been able to figure out,=C2=A0 it seems there are no imminent problems with removing it, Thanks, Knut >=20 > thanks > -- PMM