Bug 799040

Summary:	tog-pegasus should Provide: cim-server to be consistent with sblim-sfcb
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Perry Myers <pmyers>
Component:	tog-pegasus	Assignee:	Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Petr Sklenar <psklenar>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.3	CC:	azelinka, cvincent, kaitlin, ovasik, psklenar, veillard
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	799037	Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-06-20 14:47:32 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	799033
Bug Blocks:	799037

Description Perry Myers 2012-03-01 16:14:56 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #799037 +++

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #799033 +++

Description of problem:
Right now libvirt-cim specifically Requires: tog-pegasus

But it should probably require something more generic like "cim-server"

In order for this to happen, we'd also need sblim-sfcb and tog-pegasus to add Provides: cim-server to their spec files.

--- Additional comment from pmyers on 2012-03-01 11:05:07 EST ---

Note: tog-pegasus and sblim-sfcb already list Provides: cim-server in their spec files, so looks like just a change to libvirt-cim is all that is needed

--- Additional comment from pmyers on 2012-03-01 11:13:47 EST ---

In RHEL6, sblim-sfcb Provides: cim-server but tog-pegasus does not.  So this bug will need to depend on a RHEL 6 bug for tog-pegasus so that it can add Provides: cim-server to its spec file to be consistent with Fedora

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2012-06-20 14:47:32 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0953.html