Re: RFS: qemu-kvm (kvm)
Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
I wrote to debian kvm package maintainer several times, I
submitted a bugreport against kvm long time ago, but never
heard back.
So now I'm requesting a sponsor to upload my packages into
debian.
You are trying to hijack kvm, this is not the way to do it appropriately.
I'm trying to make it to work.
And to my shame, I don't know how to do that in another way.
I already support debian users by maintaining the package
out of debian.
Anyway your package is completely wrong, you only changed the source name, we
can't have the same binary name for two different packages, or two identical
packages with a different name.
Well, saying it's completely wrong is not wise. It's not wrong.
You named one reason why do you think it's wrong. Which is its
name. But this has its reasoning in upstream naming.
As I described in my initial email, initially there were
development snapshots with naming scheme like kvm-$number.
It was nothing but development snapshots. First stable
release was named qemu-kvm-0.10.0, and it will follow this
naming scheme from now on.
With this, there's no real need to package the development
snapshots anymore. So kvm-$number _source_ package should
go, and be replaced with qemu-kvm. Which is exactly what
my version does.
In short: the source naming scheme follows upstream.
Note again that as of lenny, there was _no_ single
stable release of kvm.
As of with naming scheme of kvm _binary_ package, I left
it the way it was before, to avoid further confusion.
Which is enough already, due to the fact that kvm is
a patched version of qemu.
kvm is a well-recognized _executable_ name for this
binary, and the fact that it comes from qemu-kvm source
is not an issue.
Also I want to have easy upgrade path from kvm-$num
as in debian now to this qemu-kvm package.
So I'm not quite sure what I missed. Except of the
"proper way" you mentioned above. Which I still don't
know -- the way I know is to contact the maintainer
and/or submit bugreports. I did both, starting about
half a year ago, but to no avail.
Thanks.
/mjt
Reply to: