On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > And all that data is completely irrelevant for the reason I mentioned > again and again.
Now that we have the data, and that it goes your way, yes you can say it's irrelevant ;) What if instead, it turned out only f22 was shipping a new enough libvirt? I would have reverted your patch and added some #ifdef. > Please point to at least one actual example of any > distro wanting to upgrade libvirt-glib to latest while wanting to keep > an year old release of libvirt and you'll have a point. The point of looking up that information was actually to be able to make an informed decision as to whether there may be distros wanting to do that or not. Which is why I was asking for that data, and I now feel more confident that this is indeed not going to be an issue. It really took 10 minutes to gather, much less time than arguing that this information is not needed ;) Christophe
pgpATcrc8UMxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
