> Actually we're thinking about NetworkManager, not netcf.
>
Also note that NetworkManager doesn't currently support bridge creation which I
thought was something we needed to do (and I assumed was why we were manually
interacting with the 'old' network configuration method in the first place).
On Tuesday 22 November 2011 14:56:50 Perry Myers wrote:
> > This means that network manager no longer pulls gnome-related
> > packages, which is very good news. If this is the case in other
> > distro's I think we can converge on this solution.
>
> mburns did a test on this yesterday and confirmed
> This means that network manager no longer pulls gnome-related
> packages, which is very good news. If this is the case in other
> distro's I think we can converge on this solution.
mburns did a test on this yesterday and confirmed that on Fedora it also
does not pull in Gnome/X, so it looks like
On Monday 21 November 2011 19:12:36 Federico Simoncelli wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Doron Fediuck"
> > To: us...@ovirt.org
> > Cc: "VDSM Project Development"
> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:13:20 PM
> > Subject: R
- Original Message -
> From: "Doron Fediuck"
> To: us...@ovirt.org
> Cc: "VDSM Project Development"
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:13:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Users] ovirt-node on Gentoo
>
> On Monday 21 November 2011 16:00:26 Doron Fediuck wr
On 11/21/2011 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
>> Actually we're thinking about NetworkManager, not netcf.
>>
>
> Also note that NetworkManager doesn't currently support bridge
> creation which I thought was something we needed to do (and I assumed
> was why we were manually interacting with the 'ol
On 11/21/2011 01:49 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 07:42 -0500, Ayal Baron wrote:
>> Actually we're thinking about NetworkManager, not netcf.
>
> Does NetworkManager have an api or library level package that doesn't
> pull in all the UI bits? ovirt-node does not currently include
>
On Monday 21 November 2011 16:00:26 Doron Fediuck wrote:
> On Monday 21 November 2011 14:49:43 Mike Burns wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 07:42 -0500, Ayal Baron wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:29PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guy
On Monday 21 November 2011 14:49:43 Mike Burns wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 07:42 -0500, Ayal Baron wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:29PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > Well, it looks like we've hit our first distro-diversion.
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 07:42 -0500, Ayal Baron wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:29PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> > > Hi Guys,
> > > Well, it looks like we've hit our first distro-diversion.
> > >
> > > First of all, let's define the issues, and then see h
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:36:03PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> Adding vdsm-devel, which is where such changes should be considered.
>
> It looks like in the future this may be a good choice, but we'll
> still need to support existing implementations, as well as colleague
> distro's who still do
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:29PM +0200, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > Well, it looks like we've hit our first distro-diversion.
> >
> > First of all, let's define the issues, and then see how we solve
> > each one;
> >
> > 1. Dimitrije is referring to vd
Adding vdsm-devel, which is where such changes should be considered.
It looks like in the future this may be a good choice, but we'll
still need to support existing implementations, as well as colleague
distro's who still do not have a proper systemd implementation.
BTW, Gentoo is using ~29-r1 whi
13 matches
Mail list logo
