From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: KVM call for 2017-03-14 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:56:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list To: Juan Quintela Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:34192 "EHLO mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750846AbdCNK46 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:56:58 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l37so121413795wrc.1 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:56:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14 March 2017 at 09:59, Juan Quintela wrote: > Peter Maydell wrote: >> 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, 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. thanks -- PMM From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44330) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnk8R-0000uM-5K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:57:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnk8Q-0000jt-AW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:56:59 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]:35849) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnk8Q-0000jf-3o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:56:58 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u108so121198049wrb.3 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:56:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> References: <87tw6y8bs8.fsf@secure.mitica> <20170314081312.GB13140@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wpbstesf.fsf@secure.mitica> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:56:36 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for 2017-03-14 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developer , KVM devel mailing list On 14 March 2017 at 09:59, Juan Quintela wrote: > Peter Maydell wrote: >> 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, 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. thanks -- PMM