Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)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(a)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: