[libvirt] dnsmasq supporting RA instead of radvd patch

[Laine Stump]

On 11/08/2012 01:55 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> 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.

Really I don't think that *anybody* should. There's no way to verify
that it's true.