On 26.09.2012 22:46, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> writes:
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?
We released a qemu-1.0.1-1.tar.bz2 that contained the fixed VERSION file.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Ah, I didn't know that. Maybe it's worth updating [1] then, isn't it? Regards Michal 1: http://wiki.qemu.org/Download