i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ========================================================================
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:53AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
modulo bugs.
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
yes, thanks. It should be qemu, and its subpackages. We ended up putting kvm inside of qemu-system-x86, which better reflects our future expectancies.
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
qemu-system-x86
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
whenever you think, be my guest ;)
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:53AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
yes, thanks. It should be qemu, and its subpackages. We ended up putting kvm inside of qemu-system-x86, which better reflects our future expectancies.
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
qemu-system-x86
sorry, that's still a bit confusing as those two comments seem to contradict one another. how should that sentence read, then?
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ========================================================================
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:53AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
modulo bugs.
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
yes, thanks. It should be qemu, and its subpackages. We ended up putting kvm inside of qemu-system-x86, which better reflects our future expectancies.
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
qemu-system-x86
ok, just saw the updated web page, thanks.
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry: Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA ========================================================================
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 09:32 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:53AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
modulo bugs.
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
yes, thanks. It should be qemu, and its subpackages. We ended up putting kvm inside of qemu-system-x86, which better reflects our future expectancies.
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
qemu-system-x86
ok, just saw the updated web page, thanks.
I just made the release notes more specific in that regard as well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Documentation_Virtualization_Beat#KVM_and_QEMU...
If anyone has suggestions for puffing that up some more with info regarding installation of emulated architectures or anything else, please share soon.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
Could it have been made more obscure? So now we have to install three qemu packages and three bios packages instead of qemu and kvm? That's convenient! And what of the firmware for non-x86 machines, will that be packaged in individual little bits as well?
Love the software, but the packaging appears inconvenient.
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:16:18PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
Could it have been made more obscure? So now we have to install three qemu packages and three bios packages instead of qemu and kvm?
That's just a package management tooling problem.
If you use yum, or PackageKit, life is improved because you only have to install *1* package per architecture you want:
yum install qemu-system-x86
which pulls in all the other bits via dependancies. No one is seriously expecting people to go around doing 'rpm -ivh ' on individual RPMs anymore as its just a complete waste of time
Daniel
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:16:18PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
Could it have been made more obscure? So now we have to install three qemu packages and three bios packages instead of qemu and kvm?
That's just a package management tooling problem.
If you use yum, or PackageKit, life is improved because you only have to install *1* package per architecture you want:
yum install qemu-system-x86
which pulls in all the other bits via dependancies. No one is seriously expecting people to go around doing 'rpm -ivh ' on individual RPMs anymore as its just a complete waste of time
It is also expected to happen automatically via comp groups if you want to install "Virtualization". Upgrade from F10 -> F11 is also expected to work out of the box (please report any bugs!)
For qemu, it has the nice side effect of not pulling firmwares and binaries for architectures emulators you don't want.
It does not introduce a init script for qemu linux user emulator if you are just using system emulator.
So despite of your concern that Dan already addressed, I believe the situation improved quite a bit as a whole.
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 14:38 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:16:18PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd like to clarify a couple things here, if i might:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge
first, given that that page refers to being 100% done WRT f11, should it represent *exactly* what i see on my current f11 beta system? as in, no outstanding issues?
next, under "Detailed Description", point 5:
"The kvm package is obsoleted by qemu-kvm."
can i assume that "qemu-kvm" is a typo as there appears to be no such package? what *should* that say? perhaps "qemu-kvm-tools?"
i have a few more questions about the merging of qemu and kvm but i'm going to have to think about those for a few more minutes.
Could it have been made more obscure? So now we have to install three qemu packages and three bios packages instead of qemu and kvm?
That's just a package management tooling problem.
If you use yum, or PackageKit, life is improved because you only have to install *1* package per architecture you want:
yum install qemu-system-x86
which pulls in all the other bits via dependancies. No one is seriously expecting people to go around doing 'rpm -ivh ' on individual RPMs anymore as its just a complete waste of time
It is also expected to happen automatically via comp groups if you want to install "Virtualization". Upgrade from F10 -> F11 is also expected to work out of the box (please report any bugs!)
For qemu, it has the nice side effect of not pulling firmwares and binaries for architectures emulators you don't want.
It does not introduce a init script for qemu linux user emulator if you are just using system emulator.
So despite of your concern that Dan already addressed, I believe the situation improved quite a bit as a whole.
The items listed above are certainly benefits!
One question around the packaging. While I haven't tested yet, I'm curious about the upgrade path from F-10 to F-11. Whenever package names change we sometimes introduce gaps in the package set for upgrades. Typically, we resolve these gaps with %obsoletes and % provides.
Thanks, James
-
Bill Davidsen -
Dale Bewley -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Glauber Costa -
James Laska -
Robert P. J. Day