[libvirt] [PATCH] spec: Include KVM support on RHEL 7 ppc64 and newer
--- Definitely not an expert on spec files, but I did a test build on RHEL 7.2 ppc64le and it resulted in libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-daemon-kvm-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm being built in addition to what was built even before, so it looks reasonable I guess? Comments very welcome :) libvirt.spec.in | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 03e2438..fdea12a 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ %if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 - %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %else + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches} -- 2.5.0
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 11:24 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
--- Definitely not an expert on spec files, but I did a test build on RHEL 7.2 ppc64le and it resulted in
libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-daemon-kvm-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm
being built in addition to what was built even before, so it looks reasonable I guess? Comments very welcome :)
libvirt.spec.in | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 03e2438..fdea12a 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ %if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 - %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %else + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
Ping? -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:24:34 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
--- Definitely not an expert on spec files, but I did a test build on RHEL 7.2 ppc64le and it resulted in
libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-daemon-kvm-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.3.3-1.el7.ppc64le.rpm
being built in addition to what was built even before, so it looks reasonable I guess? Comments very welcome :)
libvirt.spec.in | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 03e2438..fdea12a 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -77,7 +77,11 @@
%if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 - %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %else + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %endif %endif
%ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
%if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches} Would be better since it makes adding new releases easier. See, e.g., how it looks nice and clear for fedora: %if 0%{?fedora} %if 0%{?fedora} < 16 # Fedora doesn't have any QEMU on ppc64 until FC16 - only ppc # I think F17 is the first release with the power64 macro %ifarch ppc64 %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %endif %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 20 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %{arm} aarch64 %endif %endif Jirka
On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 12:17 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 03e2438..fdea12a 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ %if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 - %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %else + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
%if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
Would be better since it makes adding new releases easier. See, e.g., how it looks nice and clear for fedora:
%if 0%{?fedora} %if 0%{?fedora} < 16 # Fedora doesn't have any QEMU on ppc64 until FC16 - only ppc # I think F17 is the first release with the power64 macro %ifarch ppc64 %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %endif %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 20 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %{arm} aarch64 %endif %endif
Yeah, it does look better. So can I amend the commit with your proposed version and push it? Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 13:21:03 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 12:17 +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
diff --git a/libvirt.spec.in b/libvirt.spec.in index 03e2438..fdea12a 100644 --- a/libvirt.spec.in +++ b/libvirt.spec.in @@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ %if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 - %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %else + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
%if 0%{?rhel} %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 + %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 + %define qemu_kvm_arches x86_64 %{power64} + %endif %endif %ifarch %{qemu_kvm_arches}
Would be better since it makes adding new releases easier. See, e.g., how it looks nice and clear for fedora:
%if 0%{?fedora} %if 0%{?fedora} < 16 # Fedora doesn't have any QEMU on ppc64 until FC16 - only ppc # I think F17 is the first release with the power64 macro %ifarch ppc64 %define with_qemu_tcg 0 %endif %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %endif %if 0%{?fedora} >= 20 %define qemu_kvm_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{power64} s390x %{arm} aarch64 %endif %endif
Yeah, it does look better.
So can I amend the commit with your proposed version and push it?
Yeah, thanks. Jirka
participants (2)
-
Andrea Bolognani -
Jiri Denemark