On 25.09.2012 19:08, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> 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