On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:40:16AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 04/20/2016 08:10 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/15/2016 05:21 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> I don't think we need to try and support qcow-create or kvm-img
>> binaries anymore; everywhere we care about should have a
>> /usr/bin/qemu-img. See patches for more details
>>
>> Cole Robinson (3):
>> storage: remove support for /usr/bin/qcow-create
>> storage: remove support for /usr/bin/kvm-img
>> storage: drop the plumbing needed for kvm-img/qcow-create
>>
>> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 2 +-
>> src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 4 +-
>> src/storage/storage_backend.c | 131 ++-------------------------------------
>> src/storage/storage_backend.h | 9 ++-
>> src/storage/storage_backend_fs.c | 21 ++-----
>> src/util/virfile.c | 2 +-
>> tests/virstoragetest.c | 4 +-
>> 7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
>>
>
> ACK series in general (see my note in 3/3)... I always wondered about
> the history of this code as I was trudging through it for buildVol.
>
> Your call on how long you want to wait to see if anyone comes back with
> the "no we cannot remove this because" type response (of course
there's
> always git revert!
>
Dan probably has the most context on the history here, CCd for his opinion
(see patch #1 and #2 for what I could drum up on qcow-create and kvm-img
relevancy)
ACK, its fine.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|