[Vm-dev] VM packaging for Cog transition

[K. K. Subramaniam]

On Tuesday 09 Nov 2010 10:50:50 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>  was asking how to name that cog/stack vm binary. I don't see a reason to
> have both cog and stack VMs on one architecture officially.
What if Cog VM chokes on existing image files? There has to be fallback. x86 
environments are very diverse. It is hard to foresee vm/image combinations.

> On x86 it
> would be cog, on everything else stack VM for now. The question is, should
> that difference be reflected in the binary name? Is it desirable to have
> both cog and stack VMs installed next to each other? Would people be
> confused if there is no "cog" binary on their architecture?
I feel the difference should be reflected in the name, just like in qt3 and qt4.

Subbu