[libvirt] [PATCH] build: commit to 0.10.0 release naming

[Daniel Veillard]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:27:09PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 01:18 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:00:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> With 0.10.0-rc0 out the door, we are committed to the next version
> >> number.
> >>
> >> * src/libvirt_public.syms (LIBVIRT_0.9.14): Rename...
> >> (LIBVIRT_0.10.0): ...to this.
> >> * docs/formatdomain.html.in: Fix fallout.
> >> * src/openvz/openvz_driver.c (openvzDriver): Likewise.
> >> * src/remote/remote_driver.c (remote_driver): Likewise.
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I almost pushed this under the trivial rule, but realized that
> >> anyone that builds an app against rc0 will be binary incompatible
> >> with the .so post-patch.  Are we okay declaring that rc0 is
> >> unsupported so the ABI break is okay, or do I need to respin
> >> the .syms portion of this patch to keep the LIBVIRT_0.9.14
> >> label even though we had no 0.9.14 release?
> > 
> > If rc1 won't be too far in the future (so it can be pushed into distros)
> > just changing the symbol names is probably good enough.
> 
> DV said that rc1 might be as much as 3 weeks away.  If distros want to
> push rc0 out the door, and we decide to go with this patch as-is, then
> distros should backport this patch on top of rc0 for minimal pain.

  yeah rc0 is not a release candidate, it's a snapshot, it's basically
unsupported. It may not have compliled (it didn't in some configurations)
it is a completely arbitrary upstream commit, like one of the
   ftp://libvirt.org/libvirt/libvirt-git-snapshot.tar.gz

So your patch looks fine to me, i re-did it on my own too, so ACK

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel at veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/