On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 5:08 AM, László Böszörményi (GCS)
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Cameron Norman
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:47:28 -0800 Cameron Norman
>> wrote:
>>> I actually did not experience #767028 on a system that does have /proc
>>> mounted, so it is likely. Agai
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Cameron Norman
wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:47:28 -0800 Cameron Norman
> wrote:
>> I actually did not experience #767028 on a system that does have /proc
>> mounted, so it is likely. Again, I will double check later today.
>
> I said I would check but I never f
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:47:28 -0800 Cameron Norman
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, László Böszörményi
(GCS)
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Norman
wrote:
> >> It hardcodes them as 175. The uid was not taken, but the gid was
so the
> >> package installation
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, László Böszörményi (GCS)
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Norman
> wrote:
>> It hardcodes them as 175. The uid was not taken, but the gid was so the
>> package installation failed. Funnily enough, I was trying to fix #767028 at
>> the time.
> Can
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Norman wrote:
> It hardcodes them as 175. The uid was not taken, but the gid was so the
> package installation failed. Funnily enough, I was trying to fix #767028 at
> the time.
Can you confirm that #767028 happens due to udevadm failure because
/proc is no
Package: ovirt-guest-agent
Version: 1.0.10.2.dfsg-1
Severity: serious
It hardcodes them as 175. The uid was not taken, but the gid was so the
package installation failed. Funnily enough, I was trying to fix
#767028 at the time.
Best regards,
--
Cameron Norman
6 matches
Mail list logo
