[Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Anthony Liguori]

Hi,

I'm wondering what others think about cutting a new release in the next 
few days.  I had a few bugs (like the CVE I just posted) that I wanted 
to make sure were fixed before a release but I think that will all get 
worked out in a day or two.  How are the other architectures looking?  
 From what I can tell, all PPC is now using OpenBIOS so we're okay there.

Are there any major bug fixes that people are working on?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

[Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Anthony Liguori]

Hi,

I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective.  For x86, I 
think things are looking pretty good.  There are a couple outstanding 
patches that need more review (like the CVE fix) but I think we'll be 
ready in a few days.

How are the other architectures looking?  Are there any major bug fixes 
people are working on?  PPC is now fully converted to OpenBIOS, right?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[C.W. Betts]

I think it is time that a release be released; it has been over a  
year, and many great features have been added.  I say fix the CVE bugs  
then release a new version.
On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering what others think about cutting a new release in the  
> next few days.  I had a few bugs (like the CVE I just posted) that I  
> wanted to make sure were fixed before a release but I think that  
> will all get worked out in a day or two.  How are the other  
> architectures looking?  From what I can tell, all PPC is now using  
> OpenBIOS so we're okay there.
>
> Are there any major bug fixes that people are working on?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Andreas Färber]

Hi Anthony,

Am 27.02.2009 um 18:37 schrieb Anthony Liguori:

> I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective. [...] I  
> think we'll be ready in a few days.

> Are there any major bug fixes people are working on?

Cocoa is still broken. There was a draft patch from Stefano on Dec 19  
and another one from Samuel Benson on Jan 25. I'll try to look into it  
the weekend.

I believe the last remaining issues were for 16-bit; if it works  
otherwise, I would ask you to consider applying it in order to have a  
compiling release. We could fix any display issues in a separate patch  
if necessary.

Regards,

Andreas

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Anthony Liguori]

Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
>
> Am 27.02.2009 um 18:37 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>
>> I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective. [...] I think 
>> we'll be ready in a few days.
>
>> Are there any major bug fixes people are working on?
>
> Cocoa is still broken. There was a draft patch from Stefano on Dec 19 
> and another one from Samuel Benson on Jan 25. I'll try to look into it 
> the weekend.

My understanding is they still didn't fix it entirely.  The current 
cocoa implementation is extremely difficult to maintain.  I'd really 
like to see it deprecated in favor of SDL (knowing that SDL doesn't work 
on 64-bit OS X--but does that even exist today?).

> I believe the last remaining issues were for 16-bit; if it works 
> otherwise, I would ask you to consider applying it in order to have a 
> compiling release. We could fix any display issues in a separate patch 
> if necessary.

I'm okay with that too.  Just have the appropriate person resubmit.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Regards,
>
> Andreas

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[malc]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> Andreas F?rber wrote:
> > Hi Anthony,
> > 
> > Am 27.02.2009 um 18:37 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> > 
> > > I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective. [...] I think
> > > we'll be ready in a few days.
> > 
> > > Are there any major bug fixes people are working on?
> > 
> > Cocoa is still broken. There was a draft patch from Stefano on Dec 19 and
> > another one from Samuel Benson on Jan 25. I'll try to look into it the
> > weekend.
> 
> My understanding is they still didn't fix it entirely.  The current cocoa
> implementation is extremely difficult to maintain.  I'd really like to see it
> deprecated in favor of SDL (knowing that SDL doesn't work on 64-bit OS X--but
> does that even exist today?).

As i mentioned before SDL is next to unusable under OSX.

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Anthony Liguori]

malc wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>   
>> Andreas F?rber wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Anthony,
>>>
>>> Am 27.02.2009 um 18:37 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective. [...] I think
>>>> we'll be ready in a few days.
>>>>         
>>>> Are there any major bug fixes people are working on?
>>>>         
>>> Cocoa is still broken. There was a draft patch from Stefano on Dec 19 and
>>> another one from Samuel Benson on Jan 25. I'll try to look into it the
>>> weekend.
>>>       
>> My understanding is they still didn't fix it entirely.  The current cocoa
>> implementation is extremely difficult to maintain.  I'd really like to see it
>> deprecated in favor of SDL (knowing that SDL doesn't work on 64-bit OS X--but
>> does that even exist today?).
>>     
>
> As i mentioned before SDL is next to unusable under OSX.
>   

That's a recent regression though?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Blue Swirl]

On 2/27/09, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective.  For x86, I think
> things are looking pretty good.  There are a couple outstanding patches that
> need more review (like the CVE fix) but I think we'll be ready in a few
> days.
>
>  How are the other architectures looking?  Are there any major bug fixes
> people are working on?  PPC is now fully converted to OpenBIOS, right?

Yes, except for PREP.

There are recent patches to make PPC64 work that should be committed
in the coming days. That would be a nice addition but not critical.

We have also discussed about making also an OpenBIOS (1.0) release,
the previous release candidate (1.0RC1) is more than year old. It
would be great to release Qemu with 1.0 OpenBIOS.

Overall, there should be an update of the OpenBIOS images, otherwise
Sparc32 and I think PPC32 are ready. Sparc64 will not be without major
miracles in any case. PPC64 case may be interesting.

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Anthony Liguori]

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 2/27/09, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>>  I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective.  For x86, I think
>> things are looking pretty good.  There are a couple outstanding patches that
>> need more review (like the CVE fix) but I think we'll be ready in a few
>> days.
>>
>>  How are the other architectures looking?  Are there any major bug fixes
>> people are working on?  PPC is now fully converted to OpenBIOS, right?
>>     
>
> Yes, except for PREP.
>   

Is anyone working on converting PREP?  Any ETA?

> There are recent patches to make PPC64 work that should be committed
> in the coming days. That would be a nice addition but not critical.
>
> We have also discussed about making also an OpenBIOS (1.0) release,
> the previous release candidate (1.0RC1) is more than year old. It
> would be great to release Qemu with 1.0 OpenBIOS.
>   

It would be great to have a 1.0 release for our release, but do you have 
an ETA on when that would be?  It would be very good to get out a QEMU 
release within the next few days to match up with the upcoming set of 
distro releases.

And if things are moving quickly, we certainly have the ability to do 
releases every 3 months instead of every 6.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Overall, there should be an update of the OpenBIOS images, otherwise
> Sparc32 and I think PPC32 are ready. Sparc64 will not be without major
> miracles in any case. PPC64 case may be interesting.
>
>
>   

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[malc]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> malc wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:

[..snip..]

> > > My understanding is they still didn't fix it entirely.  The current cocoa
> > > implementation is extremely difficult to maintain.  I'd really like to see
> > > it
> > > deprecated in favor of SDL (knowing that SDL doesn't work on 64-bit OS
> > > X--but
> > > does that even exist today?).
> > >     
> > 
> > As i mentioned before SDL is next to unusable under OSX.
> >   
> 
> That's a recent regression though?

I'd guess fallout from r6336.

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering what others think about cutting a new release in the next few 
> days.  I had a few bugs (like the CVE I just posted) that I wanted to make 
> sure were fixed before a release but I think that will all get worked out 
> in a day or two.  How are the other architectures looking?  From what I can 

Hi,

FWIW, Iv'e commited all CRIS critical patches so CRIS would very mucch
like a new release.

In fact, I get lots of questions regarding 0.9.1 bad CRIS behaviour...

Thanks


> tell, all PPC is now using OpenBIOS so we're okay there.
>
> Are there any major bug fixes that people are working on?
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Jamie Lokier]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I wanted to see how we look from a release perspective.  For x86, I 
> think things are looking pretty good.  There are a couple outstanding 
> patches that need more review (like the CVE fix) but I think we'll be 
> ready in a few days.

Could we at least document that qcow2 has some known corruption bugs
for Windows guests?

-- Jamie

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Andreas Färber]

Am 27.02.2009 um 19:55 schrieb Anthony Liguori:

> The current cocoa implementation is extremely difficult to  
> maintain.  I'd really like to see it deprecated in favor of SDL

I understand that it is difficult to maintain for someone not running  
OSX, and I am okay with fixing it ourselves like in this case. Didn't  
you propose to add a native Gtk+ frontend yourself?

> ([...] 64-bit OS X--but does that even exist today?).

It does exist, and I'm running on it. Mac OS X v10.4 had 64-bit  
support for non-graphical apps, v10.5 added Cocoa support.

SDL 1.2.13 is a ppc+i386 Universal Binary only. It is a Mach-O  
Framework and does not include an sdl-config tool, so it is not  
detected by QEMU's configure. You would use it through -framework SDL  
rather than `sdl-config --libs`. I have no further knowledge about SDL  
on Mac OS X other than that it was not installed on my system. But in  
order to extend QEMU to a real graphical frontend the choice is  
certainly the native Cocoa API.

Originally I was using Q, a Cocoa frontend patched into QEMU 0.9.0  
CVS. Shortly after we updated it for 0.9.1, they reorganized the  
project for Q2 and imported some version of QEMU into their SVN tree,  
decoupling Q from QEMU SVN trunk. Development seems to have stalled  
since then.
So currently, QEMU's basic Cocoa frontend is the only way to use a  
graphical QEMU on Mac OS X to my knowledge.

Andreas

Re: [Qemu-devel] How are we looking for a release?

[Alexander Graf]

On 01.03.2009, at 18:41, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de> wrote:

>
> Am 27.02.2009 um 19:55 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>
>> The current cocoa implementation is extremely difficult to  
>> maintain.  I'd really like to see it deprecated in favor of SDL
>
> I understand that it is difficult to maintain for someone not  
> running OSX, and I am okay with fixing it ourselves like in this  
> case. Didn't you propose to add a native Gtk+ frontend yourself?

I don't see any issues with keeping it in the tree, as long as there  
are contributors fixing it, which is currently the case.

I could understand if you were thinking of dropping it because nobody  
cares, but please don't drop code just because.

>> ([...] 64-bit OS X--but does that even exist today?).
>
> It does exist, and I'm running on it. Mac OS X v10.4 had 64-bit  
> support for non-graphical apps, v10.5 added Cocoa support.
>
> SDL 1.2.13 is a ppc+i386 Universal Binary only. It is a Mach-O  
> Framework and does not include an sdl-config tool, so it is not  
> detected by QEMU's configure. You would use it through -framework  
> SDL rather than `sdl-config --libs`. I have no further knowledge  
> about SDL on Mac OS X other than that it was not installed on my  
> system. But in order to extend QEMU to a real graphical frontend the  
> choice is certainly the native Cocoa API.

It's even worse than that. I have a working SDL compilation on my Mac  
that runs for 32 bit target mode. But as far as I'm aware of it, there  
is no x86_64 SDL available, because Apple dropped some APIs in 64 bit  
mode.

So while you could theoretically build qemu with SDL on osx-i386,  
there is no way you could on osx-x86_64 atm.

> Originally I was using Q, a Cocoa frontend patched into QEMU 0.9.0  
> CVS. Shortly after we updated it for 0.9.1, they reorganized the  
> project for Q2 and imported some version of QEMU into their SVN  
> tree, decoupling Q from QEMU SVN trunk. Development seems to have  
> stalled since then.
> So currently, QEMU's basic Cocoa frontend is the only way to use a  
> graphical QEMU on Mac OS X to my knowledge.

With the recent vnc enhancements it might make sense to write a ui app  
decoupled from qemu that does basically what libvirt/virtman does.

But I'm not exactly a UI developer, so I'll leave the fun to you :).

Alex