Inconsistent behavior for bridges on RHEL6 and RHEL7

[tyll]

This fails on RHEL6 and is related to #35 iirc.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 189

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 38.698%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 186:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	779
Relevant Lines:	2013

---

💛 - Coveralls

[tyll]

[citest]

[tyll]

The first two commits are parte of #72

[pcahyna]

Should this PR be merged?

[tyll]

No, this was only to have a test case to be able to easily reproduce the inconsistent behavior. When the states are re-defined, then it can be adjusted and merged I guess.

[pcahyna]

When the states are re-defined, then it can be adjusted and merged I guess.

States were re-defined in #77. Can the test be adjusted now, please?

[tyll]

The new state definitions do not define the behavior for virtual interfaces. The test here checked whether the bridge device was removed after the profile was removed. This is now the persitence_state and it only defines whether the profile is on-disk but not whether the device exists. One could argue that state:down should remove the device but I am more convinced that it is not important to have a defined interface state. Therefore I close this PR now.