On 09/12/11 7:20 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:20:29AM -0500, Brad wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:13:02AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-12-07, Brad<b...@comstyle.com> wrote:
-@bin bin/qemu
I'd prefer to keep this working via a courtesy symlink pointing at
either qemu-system-i386 or qemu-system-x86_64. Otherwise there needs to
be some clear information. Without one or other of these, people are
going to wonder what's going on, tab-complete, see qemu-i386, try and
run it, receive a segfault, then think, as well as forcing them to
make changes to their scripts, that the update has totally broken qemu.
I'm not adding a symlink as there will be another binary of the same
name there in the future.
When? In qemu 2.0? Or earlier in some 1.x release?
Why does a future qemu release really matter for a functional port of 1.0?
It is fully functional.
I don't mind following the upstream binary renaming dance if necessary.
But I don't think we should install the new qemu-i386 if all it does
is segfaulting and cause confusion. What do we gain by installing it?
I'll remove the BSD userland emulation support for now. It is a bit too
work in progress for the time being.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
