We hope to be releasing upstream Xen 3.2 soon. As you''ll know, we''ve been in the habit of producing binary packages for our releases, including for Fedora. It seemed to me that the best approach would be, where possible, to use a distro''s own packaging setup. That would be more likely to generate packages which integrate well with the distro and behave more like the distro''s own Xen packaging arrangements. I haven''t looked at the FC6 srpm in detail yet but what would you think about it if we were to generate our 3.2 binary rpms based on that ? Regards, Ian.
John Summerfield
2007-Dec-10 12:09 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
Ian Jackson wrote:> We hope to be releasing upstream Xen 3.2 soon. As you''ll know, we''ve > been in the habit of producing binary packages for our releases, > including for Fedora. > > It seemed to me that the best approach would be, where possible, to > use a distro''s own packaging setup. That would be more likely to > generate packages which integrate well with the distro and behave more > like the distro''s own Xen packaging arrangements. > > I haven''t looked at the FC6 srpm in detail yet but what would you > think about it if we were to generate our 3.2 binary rpms based on > that ?I wouldn''t be impressed:-) I believe FC6 has just been terminated (support for Fedora ends soon after the second successor). Is basing on Fedora 8 a problem? It''s got about a year of life left in it. Note to Ian I assume that since you seem to have set reply to your own address that you want off-list replies. You cannot reply direct to me however. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)
John Summerfield writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> I believe FC6 has just been terminated (support for Fedora ends soon
> after the second successor).
Maybe I''m confused about version numbers or looking at the wrong
sites. I''m pretty new to the fedora world so I hope you''ll
forgive me
needing a bit of handholding.
The sources I found were at
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/
where the most recent are 6 and 6.93 (which I take to be a
work-in-progress 7).
I was somewhat puzzled by the .redhat.com domain but I wasn''t able to
find anywhere more recent. Did I miss the relevant documentation ? I
found this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers
but I seem still in the dark.
> Is basing on Fedora 8 a problem? It''s got about a year of life
left in it.
If that''s released then yes. I see from the fedoraproject.org website
that there''s some marketing swooshing for it :-).
> Note to Ian
> I assume that since you seem to have set reply to your own address that
> you want off-list replies. You cannot reply direct to me however.
I''m not sure I follow. Evidently there is a convention here of how to
deal with mailing lists and email headers, but I''m not aware of it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
didn''t seem to help me.
I''m subscribed to the list and will read replies sent there, if
that''s
what you mean. And I think it''s be rude to just post and expect
responders to email you rather than replying to the list. OTOH I know
most (more than half, but by no means all) people prefer to get a CC.
I''ll assume from what you say above that you would prefer me not to CC
you.
Ian.
Daniel Veillard
2007-Dec-10 12:47 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:35:39PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> John Summerfield writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): > > I believe FC6 has just been terminated (support for Fedora ends soon > > after the second successor). > > Maybe I''m confused about version numbers or looking at the wrong > sites. I''m pretty new to the fedora world so I hope you''ll forgive me > needing a bit of handholding. > > The sources I found were at > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/ > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/ > where the most recent are 6 and 6.93 (which I take to be a > work-in-progress 7).''Fedora Core'' was renamed ''Fedora'' between version 6 and 7, you will find the latests under the ''releases'' subdir: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/ Please rebase based on Fedora 8 if you a binary rebuild, thanks, but ... My own opinion about this is that since xen is packaged as part of Fedora, rebuilding a package on your side might be more of a problem than a solution (I mean for official release rather than for testing) since it''s best to keep a coherency. If you have some problems with the packages as done in Fedora, it''s better to get the issues (assuming any) solved, rather than putting a parallel set of packages, in the end avoiding users confusions helps everybody in my opinion. my 2 euros cents, Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Daniel Veillard writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> ''Fedora Core'' was renamed ''Fedora''
between version 6 and 7, you
> will find the latests under the ''releases'' subdir:
Ahh! Thanks.
> My own opinion about this is that since xen is packaged as part of
> Fedora, rebuilding a package on your side might be more of a problem
> than a solution (I mean for official release rather than for testing)
> since it''s best to keep a coherency. If you have some problems
with
> the packages as done in Fedora, it''s better to get the issues
(assuming
> any) solved, rather than putting a parallel set of packages, in the end
> avoiding users confusions helps everybody in my opinion.
Right, I can absolutely see where you''re coming from and obviously I
would prefer to let Fedora developers do the work too :-).
The question is what users might be expected to do between the release
of Xen 3.2 and the time that Fedora releases its Xen 3.2 packages.
For most users of Xen it''s a pretty critical and important package and
some kind of backport of Xen 3.2 onto their running system is likely
to be valuable to many. Xen users may often want to choose explicitly
to upgrade their Xen version.
I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including new
upstream
versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies
would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an
already-released distribution.
Ian.
John Summerfield
2007-Dec-10 13:34 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
Ian Jackson wrote:> Daniel Veillard writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): >> ''Fedora Core'' was renamed ''Fedora'' between version 6 and 7, you >> will find the latests under the ''releases'' subdir: > > Ahh! Thanks. > >> My own opinion about this is that since xen is packaged as part of >> Fedora, rebuilding a package on your side might be more of a problem >> than a solution (I mean for official release rather than for testing) >> since it''s best to keep a coherency. If you have some problems with >> the packages as done in Fedora, it''s better to get the issues (assuming >> any) solved, rather than putting a parallel set of packages, in the end >> avoiding users confusions helps everybody in my opinion. > > Right, I can absolutely see where you''re coming from and obviously I > would prefer to let Fedora developers do the work too :-). > > The question is what users might be expected to do between the release > of Xen 3.2 and the time that Fedora releases its Xen 3.2 packages. > For most users of Xen it''s a pretty critical and important package and > some kind of backport of Xen 3.2 onto their running system is likely > to be valuable to many. Xen users may often want to choose explicitly > to upgrade their Xen version. > > I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including new upstream > versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies > would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an > already-released distribution.I''m not an official part of the fedora project. I suggest you get the latest from rawhide and work from that. Contact one or more of the most recent people mentioned in the changelog and offer to contribute the results, and by the way, can this go into Fedora 7 & 8 too? Rawhide is the bleeding edge of Fedora. people there expect to get cut:-) I wouldn''t regard fedora as a stable distribution; if stability is important, CentOS is the place to go for cheapskates like me. Fedora regularly gets new kernels and other new stuff, I don''t see why xen should be excluded. Best all round though if it can be built to cohabit with earlier xen, so people can have both at once, maybe (given its nature) choosing which at boot time. That though will depend in part on related packages. This user would quite like the latest in F8, but I''m not sure I want to run rawhide. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)
You might also like to read Daniel Berrange''s post from 30th November entitled "FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9" R.
John Summerfield writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> I''m not an official part of the fedora project. I suggest you get
the
> latest from rawhide and work from that.
I see. Right. I''ll take a look.
> I wouldn''t regard fedora as a stable distribution; if stability is
> important, CentOS is the place to go for cheapskates like me. Fedora
> regularly gets new kernels and other new stuff, I don''t see why
xen
> should be excluded.
Fedora 8 gets substantial new stuff ? OK, well in that case if that''s
likely to happen quickly then that''s good.
> Best all round though if it can be built to cohabit with earlier xen, so
> people can have both at once, maybe (given its nature) choosing which at
> boot time. That though will depend in part on related packages.
Yes. The Debian packages have an arrangement for doing this but they
achieve it with a very invasive (and time-consuming to maintain) set
of changes to the upstream Makefiles. We''re not going to get that
feature upstream in in 3.2 now, although I''ll definitely be pushing it
later (although probably not based exactly on the Debian patchset).
> This user would quite like the latest in F8, but I''m not sure I
want to
> run rawhide.
Right.
Regards,
Ian.
Daniel P. Berrange
2007-Dec-10 14:36 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:01:27PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> We hope to be releasing upstream Xen 3.2 soon. As you''ll know, we''ve > been in the habit of producing binary packages for our releases, > including for Fedora. > > It seemed to me that the best approach would be, where possible, to > use a distro''s own packaging setup. That would be more likely to > generate packages which integrate well with the distro and behave more > like the distro''s own Xen packaging arrangements.Personally I don''t see the point in XenSource generating RPMs for Fedora since we already generate them ourselves, and it creates confusion about which RPMs should be used on Fedora. We will be syncing Fedora 9 (aka rawhide) to Xen 3.2.0 release candidates this week, with the plan that F 9 will ship the 3.2.0 hypervisor and userspace. That said I guess you may wish to generate 3.2.0 packages for old Fedora 7 and 8 releases, since we intend to keep the official Fedora packages for those release on the 3.1.x tree. For kernel side of things it is more complex in F9 world.... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html> I haven''t looked at the FC6 srpm in detail yet but what would you > think about it if we were to generate our 3.2 binary rpms based on > that ?FC6 is dead, so skip that. Each Fedora release evolves the packaging to some degree, so for each release you intend to build binary packages for you should look at the corresponding src.rpm. This will help ensure that your packages integrate cleanly with each particular release. Current live supported releases are F7 and F8, and latest dev tree is F9. CVS for the Xen userspace package is here: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/xen/ While the kernel + hypervisor live here: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/kernel-xen-2.6/ In F9 the kernel bit will be changing - the hypervisor will likely move out into its own package - possibly part of the the main ''xen'' package - its undecided at this stage. Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Daniel P. Berrange
2007-Dec-10 14:38 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:35:39PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> John Summerfield writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): > > I believe FC6 has just been terminated (support for Fedora ends soon > > after the second successor). > > Maybe I''m confused about version numbers or looking at the wrong > sites. I''m pretty new to the fedora world so I hope you''ll forgive me > needing a bit of handholding. > > The sources I found were at > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/ > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/ > where the most recent are 6 and 6.93 (which I take to be a > work-in-progress 7).Ignore the download sites - go straight to the CVS repo I posted in the other thread since that ensures you get current master sources> I was somewhat puzzled by the .redhat.com domain but I wasn''t able to > find anywhere more recent. Did I miss the relevant documentation ? I > found this:Don''t worry about the domain - download.fedora.redhat.com is just one of the mirrors for download.fedoraproject.org Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Daniel P. Berrange
2007-Dec-10 14:41 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:02:18PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> Daniel Veillard writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): > > ''Fedora Core'' was renamed ''Fedora'' between version 6 and 7, you > > will find the latests under the ''releases'' subdir: > > Ahh! Thanks. > > > My own opinion about this is that since xen is packaged as part of > > Fedora, rebuilding a package on your side might be more of a problem > > than a solution (I mean for official release rather than for testing) > > since it''s best to keep a coherency. If you have some problems with > > the packages as done in Fedora, it''s better to get the issues (assuming > > any) solved, rather than putting a parallel set of packages, in the end > > avoiding users confusions helps everybody in my opinion. > > Right, I can absolutely see where you''re coming from and obviously I > would prefer to let Fedora developers do the work too :-). > > The question is what users might be expected to do between the release > of Xen 3.2 and the time that Fedora releases its Xen 3.2 packages. > For most users of Xen it''s a pretty critical and important package and > some kind of backport of Xen 3.2 onto their running system is likely > to be valuable to many. Xen users may often want to choose explicitly > to upgrade their Xen version. > > I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including new upstream > versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies > would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an > already-released distribution.Since the userspace and hypervisor have a pretty tight ABI requirement we cannot do major Xen upgrades during the life of any single Fedora release. So, during the rawhide development cycles we track to the latest Xen major release, and then Fedora releases we track the minor bug fix release of Xen. So, Fedora 7 and 8 were released on Xen 3.1.0 and are now updated to Xen 3.1.2. We will not update Fedora 7 or 8 to Xen 3.2.0 because the 3.2.0 hypervisor is ABI incompatible with the 3.1.x userspace and vica-verca Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Ian Jackson
2007-Dec-10 14:52 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] Re: xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
Robin Bowes writes ("[Fedora-xen] Re: xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> You might also like to read Daniel Berrange''s post from 30th
November
> entitled "FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9"
Thanks. That''s definitely interesting, particularly for our post-3.2
plans.
Ian.
Daniel P. Berrange writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:02:18PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including
new upstream
> > versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies
> > would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an
> > already-released distribution.
>
> Since the userspace and hypervisor have a pretty tight ABI requirement we
> cannot do major Xen upgrades during the life of any single Fedora release.
I don''t necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I''m not
sure
this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there''s an ABI compatibility
requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both
the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together.
> So, during the rawhide development cycles we track to the latest Xen major
> release, and then Fedora releases we track the minor bug fix release of
> Xen. So, Fedora 7 and 8 were released on Xen 3.1.0 and are now updated to
> Xen 3.1.2. We will not update Fedora 7 or 8 to Xen 3.2.0 because the
> 3.2.0 hypervisor is ABI incompatible with the 3.1.x userspace and
vica-verca
So do you think it would be worthwhile for Xensource to make binary
packages of Xen 3.2 (both hypervisor and dom0 tools) backported to
Fedora 8 ?
Ian.
Chris Lalancette
2007-Dec-10 15:05 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
Ian Jackson wrote:> Daniel P. Berrange writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:02:18PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including new upstream >>> versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies >>> would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an >>> already-released distribution. >> Since the userspace and hypervisor have a pretty tight ABI requirement we >> cannot do major Xen upgrades during the life of any single Fedora release. > > I don''t necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I''m not sure > this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there''s an ABI compatibility > requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both > the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together.In theory, yes. However, the problem ends up being that we can''t force people to reboot to the new kernel, so what happens in practice is that people update their kernel + userspace API, don''t reboot, and then wonder why things don''t work anymore. Chris Lalancette
Daniel P. Berrange
2007-Dec-10 15:07 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:58:14PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> Daniel P. Berrange writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:02:18PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I don''t know what Fedora''s policy is about including new upstream > > > versions in updates, but I would think that most sensible policies > > > would generally frown on pushing a new hypervisor into an > > > already-released distribution. > > > > Since the userspace and hypervisor have a pretty tight ABI requirement we > > cannot do major Xen upgrades during the life of any single Fedora release. > > I don''t necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I''m not sure > this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there''s an ABI compatibility > requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both > the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together.The problem comes because when you upgrade the userspace that takes effect immediately, but the hypervisor only takes effect upon reboot. So you have a time of incompatbility. In addition if the new hypervisor doesn''t work out and you want to reboot to old version, then you''re now incompatible with the userspace you upgraded. So while we could provide updates of both hypervisor and userspace it generates more support problems & bug reports that it is worth. So we decide to only update along the bugfix release trees. The release cycle of Fedora is fast enough (6 months) that there isn''t very long to wait before the next Fedora release to get the newer Xen so there''s no serious pressure to do major updates within one release.> > So, during the rawhide development cycles we track to the latest Xen major > > release, and then Fedora releases we track the minor bug fix release of > > Xen. So, Fedora 7 and 8 were released on Xen 3.1.0 and are now updated to > > Xen 3.1.2. We will not update Fedora 7 or 8 to Xen 3.2.0 because the > > 3.2.0 hypervisor is ABI incompatible with the 3.1.x userspace and vica-verca > > So do you think it would be worthwhile for Xensource to make binary > packages of Xen 3.2 (both hypervisor and dom0 tools) backported to > Fedora 8 ?There may well be people interested in that. We won''t be doing it as part of the official Fedora xen packages, so if you wish to provide those updates you won''t be duplicating effort & some people may find it useful. For sanity testing I''d recommend verifying the ability to run ''virt-install'' ''virt-manager'' & ''virsh'' against your updated pacakges, since those are the primary virtualizatioln administration tools used in Fedora. Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Chris Lalancette writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don''t necessarily disagree with your conclusion but
I''m not sure
> > this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there''s an ABI
compatibility
> > requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both
> > the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together.
>
> In theory, yes. However, the problem ends up being that we can''t
> force people to reboot to the new kernel, so what happens in
> practice is that people update their kernel + userspace API, don''t
> reboot, and then wonder why things don''t work anymore.
Right.
Having separate 3.2 packages available from a different place would
avoid that problem because a user would have to go out of their way to
choose to get it, rather than just taking the updates in the usual
way.
So would it be best for Xensource to build and publish those packages
based on Fedora 8 srpms or do you have somewhere at Fedora for this
kind of thing (effectively a backport) ?
Ian.
Daniel P. Berrange writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary
packages"):> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:58:14PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So do you think it would be worthwhile for Xensource to make binary
> > packages of Xen 3.2 (both hypervisor and dom0 tools) backported to
> > Fedora 8 ?
>
> There may well be people interested in that. We won''t be doing it
as part of
> the official Fedora xen packages, so if you wish to provide those updates
> you won''t be duplicating effort & some people may find it
useful.
Right.
> For sanity testing I''d recommend verifying the ability to run
''virt-install''
> ''virt-manager'' & ''virsh'' against
your updated pacakges, since those are the
> primary virtualizatioln administration tools used in Fedora.
I''ll see what I can do.
Ian.
Daniel P. Berrange
2007-Dec-10 15:27 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:24:08PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:> Chris Lalancette writes ("Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages"): > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I don''t necessarily disagree with your conclusion but I''m not sure > > > this reasoning makes sense. Certainly there''s an ABI compatibility > > > requirement but all that means is that you would want to upgrade both > > > the hypervisor and the dom0 toolstack together. > > > > In theory, yes. However, the problem ends up being that we can''t > > force people to reboot to the new kernel, so what happens in > > practice is that people update their kernel + userspace API, don''t > > reboot, and then wonder why things don''t work anymore. > > Right. > > Having separate 3.2 packages available from a different place would > avoid that problem because a user would have to go out of their way to > choose to get it, rather than just taking the updates in the usual > way. > > So would it be best for Xensource to build and publish those packages > based on Fedora 8 srpms or do you have somewhere at Fedora for this > kind of thing (effectively a backport) ?No, we don''t have any separate backports repository, so hosting it on xen.org would be the best bet. Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
John Summerfield
2007-Dec-10 23:00 UTC
Re: [Fedora-xen] xen-unstable => 3.2, binary packages
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:>> >> Having separate 3.2 packages available from a different place would >> avoid that problem because a user would have to go out of their way to >> choose to get it, rather than just taking the updates in the usual >> way. >> >> So would it be best for Xensource to build and publish those packages >> based on Fedora 8 srpms or do you have somewhere at Fedora for this >> kind of thing (effectively a backport) ? > > No, we don''t have any separate backports repository, so hosting it on xen.org > would be the best bet.I think it would be worth talking to the rpmforge folk; they may find a space for you and I think that would be more visible. I think they also have rpms for other distros, and I suppose that might be of interest. If you think RHEL (and its clone) users might be interested, CentOS has an area for RHEL-compatible packages. Some CentOS users might be more adventurous than RHEL users; they don''t have support arrangements to break. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)