Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

[Michal Privoznik]

On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
> <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2012 06:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>> On 25.09.2012 10:58, Dmitry Fleytman wrote:
>>>>>> This patch fixes incorrect help screen parsing for QEMU 1.0.1 package
>>>>>> Version line changed from
>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>> To
>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0,1 (qemu-kvm-1.0.1), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like a bug to me. If it is a micro version number, why is it
>>>>> delimited with comma instead of dot? If it is not a micro version
>>>>> number, can we threat it like it is?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, it smells very much like a QEMU/distro bug to me.
>>>
>>> It is an upstream bug:
>>>
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg02527.html
>>>
>>> Distros should probably be backporting that particular patch, but
>>> there's still the question of whether we should deal with it in libvirt
>>> because it is upstream.
>>
>> Well it is a bug on only one branch of upstream, that was promptly
>> fixed, so I still don't think we should complicate libvirt by dealing
>> with it. It is trivial for QEMU maintainers to fix
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>> --
> 
> FWIW, the raw tarball from qemu.org still contains the bug. They
> didn't reissue the tarball. First commit on the list here:
> http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/1.0
> 

[CC'ing QEMU devel list]

Maybe QEMU guys can reissue the tarball since Fedora (and probably other
distros as well) is using this tarball when building a package?
Or is it distro's business to backport the patch?

Michal

Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

[Anthony Liguori]

Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> writes:

> On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
>> <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>> On 09/25/2012 06:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.09.2012 10:58, Dmitry Fleytman wrote:
>>>>>>> This patch fixes incorrect help screen parsing for QEMU 1.0.1 package
>>>>>>> Version line changed from
>>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0,1 (qemu-kvm-1.0.1), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems like a bug to me. If it is a micro version number, why is it
>>>>>> delimited with comma instead of dot? If it is not a micro version
>>>>>> number, can we threat it like it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, it smells very much like a QEMU/distro bug to me.
>>>>
>>>> It is an upstream bug:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg02527.html
>>>>
>>>> Distros should probably be backporting that particular patch, but
>>>> there's still the question of whether we should deal with it in libvirt
>>>> because it is upstream.
>>>
>>> Well it is a bug on only one branch of upstream, that was promptly
>>> fixed, so I still don't think we should complicate libvirt by dealing
>>> with it. It is trivial for QEMU maintainers to fix
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>> --
>> 
>> FWIW, the raw tarball from qemu.org still contains the bug. They
>> didn't reissue the tarball. First commit on the list here:
>> http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/1.0
>> 
>
> [CC'ing QEMU devel list]
>
> Maybe QEMU guys can reissue the tarball since Fedora (and probably other
> distros as well) is using this tarball when building a package?
> Or is it distro's business to backport the patch?

We released a qemu-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 that contained the fixed VERSION
file.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Michal

Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

[Michal Privoznik]

On 26.09.2012 22:46, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
>>> <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>> On 09/25/2012 06:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.09.2012 10:58, Dmitry Fleytman wrote:
>>>>>>>> This patch fixes incorrect help screen parsing for QEMU 1.0.1 package
>>>>>>>> Version line changed from
>>>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>     QEMU emulator version 1.0,1 (qemu-kvm-1.0.1), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems like a bug to me. If it is a micro version number, why is it
>>>>>>> delimited with comma instead of dot? If it is not a micro version
>>>>>>> number, can we threat it like it is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, it smells very much like a QEMU/distro bug to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an upstream bug:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg02527.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Distros should probably be backporting that particular patch, but
>>>>> there's still the question of whether we should deal with it in libvirt
>>>>> because it is upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Well it is a bug on only one branch of upstream, that was promptly
>>>> fixed, so I still don't think we should complicate libvirt by dealing
>>>> with it. It is trivial for QEMU maintainers to fix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>> --
>>>
>>> FWIW, the raw tarball from qemu.org still contains the bug. They
>>> didn't reissue the tarball. First commit on the list here:
>>> http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/1.0
>>>
>>
>> [CC'ing QEMU devel list]
>>
>> Maybe QEMU guys can reissue the tarball since Fedora (and probably other
>> distros as well) is using this tarball when building a package?
>> Or is it distro's business to backport the patch?
> 
> We released a qemu-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 that contained the fixed VERSION
> file.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori

Ah, I didn't know that. Maybe it's worth updating [1] then, isn't it?

Regards
Michal

1: http://wiki.qemu.org/Download