On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 15:59 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 04:43:41PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > Most of the compelling features introduced by any libvirt release
> > require the corresponding QEMU feature to be available. And, as
> > I've argued elsewhere in the thread, replacing the vendor QEMU and
> > libvirt with recent upstream releases is much easier than replacing
> > other components of the OS, most notably the kernel (and hence KVM).
>
> There are plenty of features we introduce that don't require new software
> versions. They may not be as frequent, but there are still compelling.
How many of those would be compelling enough to convince users to
step outside of the comfort zone (and probably support terms) of
vendor-provided packages and roll their own virtualization stack
from upstream sources? I reckon not that many. But if you add a
newer QEMU to the mix, then that's a wholly different value
proposition.
The introduction of virtlogd was one such feature that was compelling
to upgrade libvirt for without any change in QEMU, as it fixed a long
term security problem in libvirt.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|