On 11/08/2012 01:55 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
I'm still not thrilled that you're pushing forward with requiring 2.63 + a few patches backported from 2.64 into 2.63 and only checking against 2.63. My point is if you're going to add a check for 2.63 but really require 2.63 + 3 patches that Fedora has backported into their 2.63 version which was your original proposal, this would cause lots of headaches for every other distro out there unless they backported those very same patches into 2.63. So better to wait for 2.64 and go forward from there. libvirt works on and targets many more systems than Fedora. Agreed. Upstream, libvirt should require 2.64. If Fedora (or any other distro) cares about shipping 2.63 + patches, then they can also patch
On 11/08/2012 08:26 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: their backport of libvirt to relax things to 2.63. But upstream cannot assume that 2.63 is patched.
Really I don't think that *anybody* should. There's no way to verify that it's true.