[libvirt] dnsmasq supporting RA instead of radvd patch

Eric Blake eblake at redhat.com
Thu Nov 8 18:55:20 UTC 2012

On 11/08/2012 08:26 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>> I'm still not thrilled that you're pushing forward with requiring 2.63
>>> + a few patches backported from 2.64 into 2.63 and only checking
>>> against 2.63.

> My point is if you're going to add a check for 2.63
> but really require 2.63 + 3 patches that Fedora has backported into
> their 2.63 version which was your original proposal, this would cause
> lots of headaches for every other distro out there unless they
> backported those very same patches into 2.63. So better to wait for
> 2.64 and go forward from there. libvirt works on and targets many more
> systems than Fedora.

Agreed.  Upstream, libvirt should require 2.64.  If Fedora (or any other
distro) cares about shipping 2.63 + patches, then they can also patch
their backport of libvirt to relax things to 2.63.  But upstream cannot
assume that 2.63 is patched.

Eric Blake   eblake at redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 617 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20121108/f4ade07e/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the libvir-list mailing list