Hello all, CC'ing Stéphane as the LXC upstream.
Daniel Baumann [2014-06-01 19:57 +0200]: > close 747914 That seems a bit harsh, could we not leave this open as a wishlist bug? It sounded like you'd also prefer having network by default, it's just too hard to do with the current package? > first, this is not a thing that the debian package should, at least not > in the current state of affairs (it might look different if we have > networkd by default at some point). the network setup is the task of the > local admin to do, lxc as a package should not setup or guess the > network configuration that the admin is intending to use, regardless if > some debian derivatives/forks do it differently. The networking between the host and the LXC guests will look pretty much the same everywhere -- that just seems like a repetitive task to do? Upstream's upstart script all do that by default: https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/master/config/init/upstart/lxc-net.conf But it would be really helpful if upstream could split out all that logic into an "lxc-net" shell script and put it into /usr/share/lxc/, which is then used by the upstart job. This would allow the sysvinit and systemd init scripts to do the same, and also greatly help with this bug in Debian, as there would be essentialy no modifications against upstream any more. Stéphane, does that sound reasonable? > secondly, i've specifically been told from the dpl to not modify the > lxc-debian template as shipped by upstream Not necessary. Once the bridge and dnsmasq have been set up on the host, the container will just work (perhaps with modifying lxc.network.type). On an Ubuntu host I can create and use Debian containers just fine and they have network. > [0] why? because it's not the business to parse /etc/network/interface > and modify from bin:lxc or bin:lxc-stuff. Yes, agreed. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
