[Spice-devel] Announcing spice 0.10.0 and spice-protocol 0.10.0
Todd And Margo Chester
toddandmargo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 13:08:35 PST 2011
On 11/10/2011 12:46 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:30:26AM -0800, Todd And Margo Chester wrote:
>> On 11/10/2011 11:15 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I'm happy to announce the first release in the 0.10.x
>>> stable series. Main change from 0.9.1 is semi-seamless migration support,
>>> the complete list of changes from 0.9.1 follows:
>>> Major changes in 0.10.0:
>>> * 32 bit (little endian) server builds.
>>> * ABI compatible with 0.8.2.
>>> Major changes in 0.9.2:
>>> * !Development Release!
>>> * server: semi-seamless migration support (RHBZ 738266)
>>> * client: semi-seamless migration support (RHBZ 725009, 738270)
>>> * Various bugfixes / cleanups
>>> * require spice-protocol>= 0.9.1
>>> You can download source tarbals for spice-0.10.0 and spice-protocol 0.10.0 here:
>>> Spice-devel mailing list
>>> Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Hi Alon,
>> Very cool!
>> Do you know when (and where) RPM's will be available?
>> Did you set up the tar ball such that "rpmbuild -ta *.tar" will
>> create RPMs? (I don't see my SL6.1 server till next Tuesday, or I would
>> just download and try myself.)
> no, don't know how to do that (but I'll look now :)
> also, RPM is undefined - fedora/rhel/suse/what-ever-became-of-mandrake
> is there a one-spec-to-rule-them-all way? otherwise I don't think it's
> worth the effort.
Don't know about the one rule fits all. Not to pick on the SUSE folks,
but I really want to see RHEL/Fedora. If you get it to work under that
the SUSE folks should be able to cope, but I don't know for sure.
Using the "rpmbuild -ta" method would get rid on guys like me
constantly whining about RPMs. It would also greatly increase the
number code testers.
Here is a good example of a tar ball that works perfectly with
Sometimes an example beets all the verbiage in the world.
More information about the Spice-devel