On Oct 29, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:51:22AM +0200, Lori Jakab wrote:
>> On 10/17/13 8:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:21:09PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
if it mak
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:51:22AM +0200, Lori Jakab wrote:
> On 10/17/13 8:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:21:09PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> >>Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
> >>if it makes sense to keep maintaining the same in
> >>openvswitch p
On 10/17/13 8:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:21:09PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
if it makes sense to keep maintaining the same in
openvswitch package.
For instance, I've added systemd units to better integrate
with s
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:21:09PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> > Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
> > if it makes sense to keep maintaining the same in
> > openvswitch package.
> >
> > For instance, I've added
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:21:09PM -0300, Flavio Leitner wrote:
> Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
> if it makes sense to keep maintaining the same in
> openvswitch package.
>
> For instance, I've added systemd units to better integrate
> with systemd. See this bug below:
>
Hi,
Since fedora has openvswitch packages available I wonder
if it makes sense to keep maintaining the same in
openvswitch package.
For instance, I've added systemd units to better integrate
with systemd. See this bug below:
Provide native systemd unit files and fix startup dependency
https://b
