On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
--
BrunoJCM
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
