FYI, when configuring libvirt --with_hal and --without_ udev I'm seeing the following build failure Making all in src make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/libvirt-0.9.11.3/src' make[2]: *** No rule to make target `libvirt_dbus.syms', needed by `libvirt.syms'. Stop. It seems commit 372a14c6 should not have been backported to the stable branch without commit 2223ea98, but the latter doesn't look to be a bug fix and hence a target for the stable branch.

On 05/06/2012 12:26 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: > libvirt 0.9.11.3 maintenance release is now available (actually, > available since April 27 but I neglected to send this mail). This is > libvirt 0.9.11 with additional bugfixes that have accumulated > upstream since the initial release. > > This release can be downloaded at: > > http://libvirt.org/sources/stable_updates/libvirt-0.9.11.3.tar.gz > > List of changes since libvirt-0.9.11.2: > > * Stable release 0.9.11.3 > * python: Fix doc directory name for stable releases > * docs: Serialize running apibuild.py > * configure: Use ustar format for dist tarball > * qemu: improve errors related to offline domains > * nwfilter: address more coverity findings > * nwfilter: address coverity findings > * util: fix error messages in virNetlinkEventServiceStart Cole, I noticed that you were inconsistent on whether you used 'git cherry-pick -x' when backporting patches, which makes it a bit harder to see which mainline patch corresponds to each backported patch. I'm wondering if we should enforce a branch checkin policy that requires either a cherry pick id or a special comment stating that a patch is maint-branch-only (in the latter category would be patches that bump the version number in configure.ac).

On 05/06/2012 12:26 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: > libvirt 0.9.11.3 maintenance release is now available (actually, > available since April 27 but I neglected to send this mail). This is > libvirt 0.9.11 with additional bugfixes that have accumulated > upstream since the initial release. > > This release can be downloaded at: > > http://libvirt.org/sources/stable_updates/libvirt-0.9.11.3.tar.gz This is great for Fedora 17. But right now, there are still several open bugs for Fedora 16. Would anyone object to the creation of the v0.9.6-maint branch, which starts out with cherry-picks of the same infrastructure as 0.9.11-maint in order to prepare for an 0.9.6.1 release? I'm prepared to make the first round of patches if this sounds reasonable.