[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for 2017-03-14

From: Christian Borntraeger
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for 2017-03-14
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:39:38 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

On 03/14/2017 11:56 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 March 2017 at 09:59, Juan Quintela <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 14 March 2017 at 09:13, Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:02:01AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> The minimum requirements for the new language:
>>>> 1. Does it support the host operating systems that QEMU runs on?
>>>> 2. Does it support the host architectures that QEMU runs on?
>>> Speaking of this, I was thinking that we should introduce
>>> a rule that for any host OS/arch we support we must have
>>> a build machine so we can at least do a compile test.
>>> For instance if you believe configure we support Solaris
>>> and AIX, but I bet they're bit-rotting. The ia64 backend
>>> has to be a strong candidate for being dumped too.
>>> Demanding "system we can test on or we drop support"
>>> would let us more clearly see what we're actually running
>>> on and avoid unnecessarily ruling things out because they
>>> don't support Itanium or AIX...
>> YES, YES and YES.
>> I demand an osX build machine NOW!!!!  Remote access is ok.
> OSX is actually in the set that's OK because I have a
> machine I can test on. The ones that are problems are
> all the BSDs, AIX, Solaris, Haiku, and architectures
> sparc, mips, ia64, s390.


if you need an s390 box, you can register for a virtual machine at
If you have an account let me know the details and I will try to 
find the right people in IBM to extend the 120 day testing period 
to unlimited.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]