Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Fixed QEMU 1.0.1 support

On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange > <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 09/25/2012 06:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:49:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>>>> On 25.09.2012 10:58, Dmitry Fleytman wrote: >>>>>> This patch fixes incorrect help screen parsing for QEMU 1.0.1 package >>>>>> Version line changed from >>>>>> QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard >>>>>> To >>>>>> QEMU emulator version 1.0,1 (qemu-kvm-1.0.1), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard >>>>> >>>>> This seems like a bug to me. If it is a micro version number, why is it >>>>> delimited with comma instead of dot? If it is not a micro version >>>>> number, can we threat it like it is? >>>> >>>> I agree, it smells very much like a QEMU/distro bug to me. >>> >>> It is an upstream bug: >>> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg02527.html >>> >>> Distros should probably be backporting that particular patch, but >>> there's still the question of whether we should deal with it in libvirt >>> because it is upstream. >> >> Well it is a bug on only one branch of upstream, that was promptly >> fixed, so I still don't think we should complicate libvirt by dealing >> with it. It is trivial for QEMU maintainers to fix >> >> >> Daniel >> -- > > FWIW, the raw tarball from qemu.org still contains the bug. They > didn't reissue the tarball. First commit on the list here: > http://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/1.0 > [CC'ing QEMU devel list] Maybe QEMU guys can reissue the tarball since Fedora (and probably other distros as well) is using this tarball when building a package? Or is it distro's business to backport the patch?

Michal