RE: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable on OL6 (RHEL6 clone) problems

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Todd Deshane [mailto:deshantm@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:15 PM
> To: Fajar A. Nugraha
> Cc: Dan Magenheimer; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; keir@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable on OL6 (RHEL6 clone) problems
> 
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha <list@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Todd Deshane <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is almost full compatibility, with the exception of being able
> >> to have arbitrary python code embedded. Most should work directly.
> >> Name the bridge the same as before and it is likely to completely
> work
> >> with most built to work with Xen 4.0
> >>
> >> I'll be sure to clarify that a bit on the wiki page.
> >
> > Reading the wiki, isn't the change only required when using xl?
> > Shouldn't xm and xend work just as it has always been?
> 
> xm and xend are still available (for now), but using xl and libxl is
> preferred.

But the answer to Fajar's question is NO, correct?  This
bridging stuff is irrelevant to xm vs xl and must be done
even if you are using xm/xend on 4.1, correct?

BTW, I ran into this because "xl vncviewer" wasn't working
for me so I had to use "xm vncviewer" (which worked).

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel