On 07/27/10 10:11, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: >> On 07/26/2010 02:19 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> We should try to support all users, prioritized by the number of end >>> users they represent. If this patch broke some other large user >>> we'd be in a bind. But likely this isn't the case so we aren't. >> >> As I've said, I'm pragmatic and that's why I've argued for these >> changes in the past. But libvirt should have changed a long time ago >> to using something more reliable (like version). > > You want pragmatic? I can give you pragmatic! We apply the trivial > patch that helps libvirt and hurts nobody, and save our breath & typing > for designing and implementing a capability system.
To be honest, this is exactly the same problem we had when the output from -version changed and libvirt broke because it did static string parsing instead of doing it properly. Back then the output of -version was changed back to accommodate libvirt, but I am not aware that libvirt went ahead and fixed the real problem in the mean time. While I don't see this specific change being problematic, I don't like the trend of hacking things to accommodate a specific library or application, when the group relying on the feature really should start providing the code for the real solution. Just my $0.02 Jes
