From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for 2017-03-14 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:37:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Juan Quintela , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list To: Stefan Hajnoczi Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:35699 "EHLO mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750824AbdCNIhr (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:37:47 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id v186so57989800wmd.0 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14 March 2017 at 09:13, Stefan Hajnoczi 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... thanks -- PMM