[fedora-virt] QEMU new Package

[Glauber Costa]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 04:28:27PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 02:23:12PM -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:51:56PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:15 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:41:56AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >   qemu-linux:
> > > > I believe qemu-user suits better upstream name usage. Other than that,
> > > > I think this proposal is sound.
> > > 
> > > The reason I suggested qemu-linux is because I think QEMU's existing
> > > naming sucks :-)
> > > 
> > > i.e. system/softmmu == "emulate a full machine" and user == "emulate the
> > > linux kernel ABI"
> > > 
> > > system vs. linux makes it a little more sense, in my book.
> > I agree with you 150e^7 %. Another example of naming suckiness on upstream is
> > the fact that "qemu" stands for qemu-system-i386 on whichever platform you're on,
> > even on a rotten potato.
> > 
> > However, this is a reason for us to go upstream and suggest name changes. In the mean
> > time, adopting a different name ourselves will just make matters more confusing.
> 
> No, we do *not* want to change the 'qemu' binary. Soo much stuff out
> there knows & assumes 'qemu' is the i386 binary, and qemu-system-x86_64
> is the x86_64 emulator.  If this were a brand new project, sure it'd
> make sense to have 'qemu-system-i386', but at this stage we should not
> be renaming binaries in wide use just for sake of naming prettiness.
I totally agree.

Just saying that renaming things in our packages is even worse.