Ok, I understand what's going on better now, and I'm sorry for the
combative tone. I was indeed running the kvm from unstable, because I
had to move to the that kernel to fix a bug, and I figured keeping kvm
in as close sync as possible made the most sense. That may not have
been necessary,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:25:06PM -0500, Ron Watkins wrote:
> By adding your conflict with KVM, you're now breaking systems, if the
> administrators aren't paying attention. People running KVM, if they
> want to KEEP running KVM, can't update QEMU. There is no
> non-conflicting version of
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 12:25 -0500, Ron Watkins wrote:
> By adding your conflict with KVM, you're now breaking systems, if the
> administrators aren't paying attention. People running KVM, if they
> want to KEEP running KVM, can't update QEMU. There is no
> non-conflicting version of KVM avail
By adding your conflict with KVM, you're now breaking systems, if the
administrators aren't paying attention. People running KVM, if they
want to KEEP running KVM, can't update QEMU. There is no
non-conflicting version of KVM available anywhere in testing or unstable.
Since not even unstable
4 matches
Mail list logo
