On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:09:39AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> writes: > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 07:58:21PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: > >> On 09/08/2016 05:50 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> > > >> >> It sounds like new feature territory, but you do make a case for > >> > it being considered a set of fixes ... > >> > > >> > I agree - it straddles a line. I was hesitant to even ask, but in RHEL > >> > we probably need to backport these anyway, so I made an assumption > >> > (maybe poor) that other systemd distros might use the rhel scripts and > >> > run into this class of issues also. Good net-izen, and all that :) > >> > > >> > -Aaron > >> > >> Hi Aaron, > >> > >> Thanks for the backport request. I am also interested in these fixes and > >> it's something I could use in the SUSE package as well. For my point of > >> view I see no blockers for those updating their 2.5.0 installations with > >> these fixes in but I will do some testing on my end as well. > > > > I don't know whether we came to a conclusion on this or whether the > > discussion just dropped. Is it still desirable? > > It's definitely desirable from my PoV. I'd like to see it, and have > already gotten it packaged in a local copy of an RPM, just doing some > testing. > > I don't know if Russell or Flavio have any thoughts.
I'm OK with this backport, but I'll leave it to Russell since ultimately it's to improve Red Hat integration. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
