Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova] Are we happy with libvirt-python >= 1.2.0 ?

2015-05-15 Thread Matt Riedemann
On 5/15/2015 9:52 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-05-15 14:54:37 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: Hmm, I didn't know it was listed in global-requirements.txt - I only checked the requirements.txt and test-requirements.txt in Nova itself which does not list libvirt-python. Previously

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova] Are we happy with libvirt-python >= 1.2.0 ?

2015-05-15 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2015-05-15 14:54:37 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Hmm, I didn't know it was listed in global-requirements.txt - I only > checked the requirements.txt and test-requirements.txt in Nova itself > which does not list libvirt-python. > > Previously test-requirements.txt did have it, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova] Are we happy with libvirt-python >= 1.2.0 ?

2015-05-15 Thread Matt Riedemann
On 5/15/2015 8:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:45:06PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 13:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:51:22AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:23:25PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova] Are we happy with libvirt-python >= 1.2.0 ?

2015-05-15 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:45:06PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote: > On 15 May 2015 at 13:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:51:22AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:23:25PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> > There are some workarounds in the c

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova] Are we happy with libvirt-python >= 1.2.0 ?

2015-05-15 Thread John Garbutt
On 15 May 2015 at 13:28, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:51:22AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:23:25PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> > There are some workarounds in the code [3] I'd like to see removed by >> > bumping the minimum required v