From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix qemu building with older make Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:00:22 -0400 Message-ID: <53DA2FD6.7090701@terremark.com> References: <53D6332002000078000267C3@mail.emea.novell.com> <21463.43107.996862.418550@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <53D7CA430200007800027501@mail.emea.novell.com> <21463.49467.652734.346861@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <53D7E4320200007800027623@mail.emea.novell.com> <1406712159.5934.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XCp23-0003ug-Kv for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:00:27 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1406712159.5934.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , xen-devel , Keir Fraser , Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/30/14 05:22, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 29.07.14 at 17:43, wrote: >>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH] fix qemu building with older make"): >>>> On 29.07.14 at 15:57, wrote: >>>>> (b) have some kind of >>>>> time limit on how long we need to support make 3.80 ? >>>>> >>>>> 3.81 was released upstream over eight years ago in April 2006. >>>> I know, but I also know there's going to be a few more years where >>>> for my day-to-day work SLE10 (coming with make 3.80) is the lowest >>>> common denominator in order to be able to test backports there. >>>> And RHEL5, iirc released at about the same time, was also quite >>>> recently considered a platform desirable to continue to support. >>> RHEL5 was released in March 2007, 11 months after make 3.81 was >>> released upstream. Furthermore it is seven years old. SLES10 was >>> released in June 2006, and is therefore eight years old. People refer >>> to Debian stable as `Debian stale' but frankly this is ridiculous. >>> >>> At the very least can we put some kind of bound on this ? >>> >>> How about we `compromise' on the following rule: we will feel >>> completely entitled to delete any build and tools compatibility code >>> for anything which was superseded upstream more than a decade ago. >> I'm personally not in favor of this, but if a reasonably large majority >> would want a rule like this, I'll have to try and live with it. My scope >> for deprecation would be more towards such relatively wide spread >> distros going completely out of service (i.e. in the case of SLES not >> just general support [which happened about a year ago], but also >> long-term/extended support [which I think is scheduled for like 12 >> or 13 years after general availability]). > (I've got a sense of Deja Vu, sorry if we've been through this > before...) > > You aren't expected to support users installing Xen 4.5 onto SLE10 > though, surely? After general support and into long term support even?. > > For development purposes across multiple trees do chroot+bind mounts or > VMs not suffice? > > I think our backstop for dependencies for the dom0 bits should be the > version of things where we might reasonably expect a new user to deploy > a new version of upstream Xen from scratch on. I find it hard to imagine > anyone doing that on Debian 6.0, SLE10 or RHEL5 these days rather than > choosing Debian 7.0, SLE11 or RHEL6. RHEL6 is not directly usable as Dom0 for xen. You have to add a different kernel and so is more complex. So to use only disto stuff you were limited to RHEL5 :(. However RHEL7 should be usable without extra work (I have yet to verify this is true, do to limited time). -Don Slutz > Ian. > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel