On 10/11/2017 11:06 AM, Emmanuel Kasper wrote: > This will allow the installation of extra packages requiring a qemu binary > Bigger use case is libguestfs0 and libguestfs-tools , this has been asked > in a few different forum threads > libguestfs-tools allow to inspect and edit disk images of offline guests > and do not require libvirt domains to be used. > > Patches 1-3 is just for refactoring / modernizing the qemu packaging > Patch 4 has the real change > Patch 5 is an optional bug fix > > We do not take special care for aarch64, as Thomas said this would > probably happen in a package with a different name, which could then > have its own <package_name>.links file > > Changes since V1: > * move symlinks to new file pve-qemu-kvm.links > > Changes since RFC: > * do not rename the qemu binary, but add a kvm symlink to it > * do not rename the qemu man page, but add kvm symlint to it > * add a symlink from qemu-system-i386 to qemu-system-x86_64 to better > match the Debian package we 'Provides'. > > Emmanuel Kasper (5): > Remove deprecated dh_clean -k > Install userspace utilities and UEFI roms via dh_install > Bump dephelper compatibility level to 10 > Provides a qemu-system-x86 virtual package > Add a 'Conflicts' with qemu-system-common from Debian > > debian/compat | 2 +- > debian/control | 8 ++++++-- > debian/pve-qemu-kvm.install | 9 +++++++++ > debian/pve-qemu-kvm.links | 4 ++++ > debian/rules | 20 ++++---------------- > 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 debian/pve-qemu-kvm.install > create mode 100644 debian/pve-qemu-kvm.links >
In general, looks good to me. Upstream package provides also the following man pages[1]: /usr/share/man/man1/qemu-system-i386.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/qemu-system-x86_64.1.gz Which we do not (we have only qemu), would it make sense to make a link to these? Additionally to this, would it be possible to remove the postinst? AFAIS, the single use for it was to allow the transition from keeping the ifup/down scripts in /etc/kvm and not /etc/qemu and that happened in PVE 2.2 (2012), so it should be safe to remove it for 5.1 as no direct upgrade from 2.2 to 5.1 is possible/ recommended/... But that isn't really urgent and can be done later. [1] https://packages.debian.org/de/stretch/amd64/qemu-system-x86/filelist _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel