From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for 2017-03-14 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:33:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87efy0mcdc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list , Juan Quintela To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45660 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750742AbdCNJdW (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 05:33:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:37:24 +0100") Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Peter Maydell writes: > 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... Yes, please.