From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anNAN-0007H4-D2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:20:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anNAI-0002ch-1S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:20:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50557) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1anNAH-0002cY-Ip for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 05:20:49 -0400 References: <1459767028-28966-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <5702679B.2040600@redhat.com> <20160404155722.GA695@redhat.com> <5702A108.6010002@redhat.com> <20160405113207-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <5703836E.6070302@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:20:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160405113207-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fw_cfg: RQFN rules, documentation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "Gabriel L . Somlo" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Gerd Hoffmann On 04/05/16 10:35, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 07:14:48PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 04/04/16 17:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> >>>> ... My question is, do we need the "opt/" prefix at all (for the future, >>>> i.e., the non-historical cases)? >>>> Looking at the last discussion, I >>>> believe we converged on: >>>> >>>> - QEMU devs (future filenames): org.qemu/... >>>> - users: com.my_company/... >>>> - QEMU fw devs (future names): org.tianocore.edk2.ovmf/... >>>> org.seabios/... >>>> - QEMU fw devs hacking: /... >>>> >>>> Did you find something unsafe about this (necessitating "opt/")? >>>> >>> >>> The reason to use the opt/ prefix is to avoid warning >>> with QEMU 2.4 and 2.5. >> >> Sorry, it's been a long day :), and I don't understand your answer. Can >> you please spell it out for me? How are QEMU 2.4 and 2.5 related to this >> discussion? >> >> Thanks! >> Laszlo > > People would want to use the same command line for QEMU 2.4, 2.5 and > 2.6. If you use a prefix without opt with 2.4/2.5 you get a warning, > and if people get a warning from a valid command line, that's not nice, so > we want a prefix that does not cause a warning for these versions. Ah, understood. Thanks. Laszlo