On 01/12/2010 07:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski wrote: [snip]
So, again, what is the reason for there being a qemu-kvm package, when it is apparently a subset of the qemu package?
Greetings, jinks
The size of the package differs enormous. I'll keep both. I didn't look at them until now, but yes, at 5 MB vs 56 MB this makes sense. The size differs because qemu-kvm doesn't build all targets by default unlike qemu. If you build qemu-kvm with ./configure --target-list="" both packages will be the same size... AFAIK the difference between the two is in the kvm implementation. qemu-kvm is far more advanced in this area (support more targets, ksm, and certainly many other things regarding the amount of code differences). *This* was what i was looking for. I couldn't really find anything
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:03 +0100 Simon Boulay <simon.boulay@gmail.com> wrote: published about the differences between the two different releases in any prominent place.
The point is, as kqemu is gone, qemu-kvm can replace qemu and even provide more functionality. But it is not so clear that this will be always true. archlinux choose to offer both packages for two different purposes and it's fine. But if they are two different applications, why not make it possible to install both at the same time? if qemu-kvm ist more advanced in the kvm regard and can offer the same functionality with an added --target-list, wouldn't it at least make sense to build both packages from the qemu-kvm sources? (I thought until now, the kvm sources wouldn't support other targets than x86(_64).)
As far as I understand, at the moment I have to choose between either latest and greatest kvm performance *or* multiple target support.
You, archlinux developers make an amazing job. The beauty and the power of archlinux is that I can easily build qemu and/or qemu-kvm in my own particular weird way ;-)
+1 :)
Greetings, Simon.
Greetings, jinks P.S.: As a sidenote: Is it normal/intentional that I don't get my own mails back via the list? Or is this some weird GMail stuff?