On 07/27/10 10:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori<address@hidden> writes:
On 07/26/2010 02:19 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
We should try to support all users, prioritized by the number of end
users they represent. If this patch broke some other large user
we'd be in a bind. But likely this isn't the case so we aren't.
As I've said, I'm pragmatic and that's why I've argued for these
changes in the past. But libvirt should have changed a long time ago
to using something more reliable (like version).
You want pragmatic? I can give you pragmatic! We apply the trivial
patch that helps libvirt and hurts nobody, and save our breath& typing
for designing and implementing a capability system.
To be honest, this is exactly the same problem we had when the output
from -version changed and libvirt broke because it did static string
parsing instead of doing it properly. Back then the output of -version
was changed back to accommodate libvirt, but I am not aware that libvirt
went ahead and fixed the real problem in the mean time.