[Mageia-dev] qemu new upstream release (1.0-rc1) and should we move from qemu-kvm to qemu?

[Kamil Rytarowski]

On 13.11.2011 10:58, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 21:11 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
>> On 12.11.2011 20:20, Michael Scherer wrote:
>>> Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 à 16:44 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
>>>
>>>> There is also one important patch missed in Mageia -
>>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-11/msg00787.html it's
>>>> dependency for the GNS3 simulator. OpenSUSE already includes it
>>>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=qemu&project=openSUSE%3ATools
>>>>
>>>> If nobody is against I will do it and contact the maintainer (misc).
>>> I prefer to wait on the stable release ( ie, no rc1 ).
>>> We will wait on stable version of qemu.
>> OK
>>> And no patch unless it comes from upstream ( and even, I am not keen on
>>> backporting feature, better wait for stable release ).
>>>
>> GNS3 is already in stable! This package is broken - no dynamips (=no
>> router emulation at all...), no patched qemu (no virtualization support
>> at all...) According to the developers and their online documentation
>> for package maintainers http://forum.gns3.net/post11571.html UDP patched
>> Qemu is dependency/very important.
> The fact that someone pushed a broken package is not a good reason to
> add patches to qemu.
OK, but I don't understand this.

Why to keep defunct packages (this could be at least "major+ issue"  on 
our bugzilla) in stable and don't even want to fix, ignore this academic 
software (with maybe overall 1 000 000* downloads and 100 000 regular 
users), and to support... the inadvisable opinion of Mageia around.. at 
least the GNS3 users.

* 799 968 Windows Downloads (just from the sourceforge mirrors) of the 
latest Windows binary of GNS3 (source 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gns-3/files/GNS3/0.7.4/)

> We have too many patches on a general scale, and I
> do not want to end with a 2nd package like gdb.
>
> Patches make harder to upgrade, harder to make sure security is done
> correctly, and harder to ensure stuff are working ( since we are on our
> own when we patch something ).
> So for the patches, make sure it is upstream
It's not qemu upstream, it's GNS3 and its community upstream.

>   ( and given the discussion
> on ml, it should be soon )
When I ask the developers, they don't know if qemu will include the 
patch at all and when (now or after one year) and they suggested to do 
the openSUSE way (today the most recommended and full featured Linux 
distro for GNS3).
> and then in a tarball ( again, given that's a
> rc 1, that should be ok soon ).
>
>> We must fix the package and provide at least not so heavy broken ones...
>>
>> I've prepared new version of GNS3, included into svn dynamips and
>> xdotool (this one suggested) - these I can maintain with my mentor, so I
>> ask for patch qemu in stable versus UDP support.
> Updates are not supposed to get new features,
Well this is a special case - the bugfix provides the feature, or the 
feature provides the bugfix.
>   so that's no. And again,
> maybe people could do more tests before pushing broken rpm to stable
> ( like gsn3 ).

OK. So if gns3 can't be fixed for the stable - than should be removed 
from the repos (for ISOs is to late).

If we don't provide qemu patch, then gns3 should be removed from 
Cauldron as well.

I believe removing GNS3 is better than keeping it broken and.. irritate 
people (I don't count the opinion of our quality). Later some 3rd party 
repos can provide GNS3 and its dependencies.