On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Adam Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't know why you see it as an F19 to F20 regression, because I'm > fairly sure it's been broken the whole time. I have two servers now running libvirtd + firewalld + NM, one is F19 and the other (the newest) one is F20. I just checked here and the F19 server has neither /etc/modules-load.d nor /etc/udev/rules.d files regarding the workaround. So, for some reason, it works on F19! Maybe the order systemd runs something.. I don't know. I just know that I followed the same procedure I used to setup libvirt on F19 to setup F20 and it didn't work (at least without the workaround). > I've been trying to get it > fixed for a while. The originator bug is > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634736 . I have a write-up > at > > https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/07/23/bridged-networking-for-libvirt-with-networkmanager-2014-fedora-21/ > which has the current 'recommended' workaround. It's been broken basically > forever, NM has never worked around this problem as network.service does. > Thank you for pointing the current bug, I think it should be linked to the original one (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512206) because it can drive someone crazy! ;) I also think that there should be a warning on libvirt doc pointing to your write-up (or the bug) in case someone decides to use NM instead of network. If you need some help testing, please let me know. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > test mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test > -- BrunoJCM
-- test mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
