[Users] [ANN] oVirt 3.4.0 Second Release Candidate is now available

[Yedidyah Bar David]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Giorgio Bersano" <giorgio.bersano at gmail.com>
> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
> Cc: "users at ovirt.org" <Users at ovirt.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:14:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Users] [ANN] oVirt 3.4.0 Second Release Candidate is now	available
> 
> 2014-03-12 14:53 GMT+01:00 Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com>:
> > Il 12/03/2014 14:45, Giorgio Bersano ha scritto:
> >> 2014-03-11 23:43 GMT+01:00 Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com>:
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo at redhat.com>
> >>>> To: announce at ovirt.org, Users at ovirt.org, "engine-devel"
> >>>> <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, "arch" <arch at ovirt.org>, "VDSM
> >>>> Project Development" <vdsm-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:17:03 PM
> >>>> Subject: [Users] [ANN] oVirt 3.4.0 Second Release Candidate is now
> >>>> available
> >>>>
> >>>> The oVirt team is pleased to announce that the 3.4.0 Second Release
> >>>> Candidate
> >>>> is now available for testing.
> >>> ...
> >>>> [1] http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.4.0_release_notes
> >>>
> >>> I noticed that not all vdsm fixes are listed in the release notes
> >>>
> >>> 74b4a27 xmlrpc: [Fix] Use correct base class for parsing request
> >>>         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1074063
> >>>
> >>> d456d75 xmlrpc: Support HTTP 1.1
> >>>         https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1070476
> >>>
> >>> Nir
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> just want to let you know that upgrading the engine from 3.4.0 RC ->
> >> 3.4.0 RC2 pulls in three i686 rpms:
> >>  glibc-2.12-1.132.el6.i686.rpm
> >>  iptables-1.4.7-11.el6.i686.rpm
> >>  nss-softokn-freebl-3.14.3-9.el6.i686.rpm
> >> ( this is a fully patched CentOS 6.5 x86_64 install).
> >
> >
> > Sounds really weird. Anybody else hit this? Can you determine which package
> > pulled in that dep?
> >
> 
> It surely is iptables that got the two other rpm in.
> 
> I think it was requested in some way because during the
>  # engine-setup
> phase I answered Yes to the firewall question
>  Do you want Setup to configure the firewall? (Yes, No) [Yes]:

I admit it sounds reasonable, but I do not think it's related.

> 
> In the very same situation in the past I had no 32 bit packages installed.
> 
> I think there are no useful messages in the setup log (extract follows):

Can you please post somewhere full logs?

Thanks.
-- 
Didi