From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
"Yanan Wang" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Deprecate the qemu-system-i386 binary
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 14:12:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3198ac7-4569-8903-b6a1-64aee26f8885@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZEozZX/eH7BzUrWl@redhat.com>
On 27/04/2023 10.33, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:31:00AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:28 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I wonder if we should take this a step further and rename qemu-system-x86_64
>>>> to qemu-system-x86! Distros can if they wish create symlinks to both
>>>> qemu-system-i386 and qemu-system-x86_64.
>>>
>>> I can't help feeling this just creates a new upgrade burden for distros
>>> for no obvious win.
>>
>> We can create the symlinks on install as well during the deprecation
>> period. It doesn't have to be done by distros.
>
> What's the actual win though ? Why would anyone want to create guests
> using qemu-system-x86, if both qemu-system-i386 / qemu-system-x86_64
> still exist indefinitely for backwards compat.
We could deprecate the old wrappers at one point in time, so we would
finally have a cleaner interface.
> What does having a
> qemu-system-x86 add that can't be achieve just though hardlink
> between the two existing binaries ?
We'd finally have a binary with saner default settings compared to the
backlevel "pc" machine type that we have as a default now?
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-27 12:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-25 13:38 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Deprecate the qemu-system-i386 binary Thomas Huth
2023-04-25 13:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] cpu: Add a way to detect 32-bit mode from argv0 Thomas Huth
2023-04-25 13:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] target/i386/cpu: Allow to limit the 64-bit binary to 32-bit mode only Thomas Huth
2023-04-25 13:38 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] docs/about/deprecated: Deprecate the qemu-system-i386 binary Thomas Huth
2023-10-06 9:38 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-04-26 10:59 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] " Paolo Bonzini
2023-04-27 8:13 ` Thomas Huth
2023-04-27 8:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-04-27 8:28 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-04-27 8:31 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-04-27 8:33 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-04-27 9:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-04-27 12:12 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2023-04-27 12:22 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-06-19 10:09 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b3198ac7-4569-8903-b6a1-64aee26f8885@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).