From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40980) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGmgY-0001pd-FR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:09:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGmgW-0004FJ-J5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:09:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGmgW-0004EQ-Az for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:09:32 -0400 Message-ID: <5062B82D.1080203@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:09:17 +0200 From: Michal Privoznik MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348563490-15598-1-git-send-email-dmitry@daynix.com> <5061A83C.2070801@redhat.com> <20120925125429.GI5408@redhat.com> <5061E273.8010009@redhat.com> <20120925170109.GC24588@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Doug Goldstein Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, Yan Vugenfirer , QEMU Developers On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange > 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