<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Michal Skrivanek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mskrivan@redhat.com" target="_blank">mskrivan@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div class="h5"><br><br>
><br>
> Not sure why it is proposed just now and not before.<br>
> The -lxc package is not used by oVirt, so it will just sit there.<br>
> The libvirt-daemon-config-network package should be harmless, it just contains<br>
> the configuration fir libvirt's default bridge ‘virbr0'<br>
<br>
</div></div>well, harmless….though for a good reason we stopped pulling in “libvirt” as the metapackage brings problematic deps in certain cases (iirc it was due to ppc64le)<br>
That’s why we depend on exactly just<br>
libvirt-daemon-config-nwfilter libvirt-daemon-kvm libvirt-lock-sanlock libvirt-client libvirt-python<br>
<br>
As Francesco says it’s mostly harmless, it’s just that on a truly clean environment “libvirt” wouldn’t be installed<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
michal<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ok, and indeed in my system is not installed... so the question is why inside the web admin gui there is a complaint about libvirt missing if not needed:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoPbcrMv8mveWNDNWpZdjIwV0U/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoPbcrMv8mveWNDNWpZdjIwV0U/view?usp=sharing</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>