On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:20:29AM -0500, Brad wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:13:02AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2011-12-07, Brad <b...@comstyle.com> wrote: > > > -@bin bin/qemu > > > > I'd prefer to keep this working via a courtesy symlink pointing at > > either qemu-system-i386 or qemu-system-x86_64. Otherwise there needs to > > be some clear information. Without one or other of these, people are > > going to wonder what's going on, tab-complete, see qemu-i386, try and > > run it, receive a segfault, then think, as well as forcing them to > > make changes to their scripts, that the update has totally broken qemu. > > I'm not adding a symlink as there will be another binary of the same > name there in the future.
When? In qemu 2.0? Or earlier in some 1.x release? Why does a future qemu release really matter for a functional port of 1.0? > Users should be conditioned to use qemu-system-i386 properly. > Updated diff adding MESSAGE to mention the change. Maybe also mention > the change in the upgrade/current FAQ? I don't mind following the upstream binary renaming dance if necessary. But I don't think we should install the new qemu-i386 if all it does is segfaulting and cause confusion. What do we gain by installing it?
