Port-xen archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: what builds and what doesn't - worse than I expected

Johan Ihrén <johani%johani.org@localhost> writes:

> And here:
>> I would say that if we can get things to build w/o pbulk that would be
>> the most important step, and debugging the not-pbulk/pbulk secondary.
>> Right now it's hard to recommend 4.1.
> Unless I'm missing something it sounds like you just answered your own
> question above.

[about 3.3]

4.2 builds.   And 4.1 built pretty recently - I built it in
January without trouble (because I have a binary package from them and
don't remember issues).

> So, FWIW, I'm still running 3.3 on a number of machines. While the
> problems of building 4.1 tools used to be one reason the other catch
> was a large chunk of custom software that I just recently finished
> porting to 4.X. I still intend to retain 3.3 for a year before fully
> trusting 4.X to be stable enough. Yes, I am that cautious.

>> any hope of PCI passthrough on 4.1/4.2?
>>> Someone needs to convert the python patch we had for 31 for 4.1.
>>> Not sure what's needed for 4.2.
>> That would be really great to have, because then we could recommend 4.1
>> period and 3.1/3.3 could become really deprecated.
> Please don't be too quick in deprecating 3.3. If we could keep Xen2
> around for several years after Xen4 arrived, surely we can keep Xen3
> for while.

I didn't mean to propose removing it from pkgsrc.  I meant more to
recommend "Don't use this unless you have some specific reason".  That's
been true of xen2 for a really long time, and it hasn't been deleted

Attachment: pgp2XT66EmgGx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index