Den 23 apr 2014 17:31 skrev "James Bromberger" <[email protected]>: > > On 23/04/2014 11:09 PM, Brian Gupta wrote: >> >> My initial take is that this seems a reasonable approach, if we
>> The key mitigating difference I think, is: >> a) this is really needed for some VPC cloud use cases >> b) no users who don't need this functionality will be impacted (please confirm) > > > I don't believe there is any impact on users who dont need this functionality at all. We can review the code as well (its just pure shell). >From my quick look tonight the only dependency appears to be on iproute2 (/sbin/ip). The dependency on iproute2 is an OK dependency. I believe it is needed in any network settings already. >> An alternative approach (if it technically works) would be to still >> package it in backports, but to use cloud-init itself to install the >> package and bring up the interfaces. However, the timing of it might >> not work at all, and even if it does it might be overly complicated? > > > I think we're thinking the same thing - possible catch-22 there on needing the interface up to apply the package at boot time (instead of image creation time). Would this pair of scripts be useful outside of EC2 - is it worth packaging if it is only ever used here as part of bootstrap-vz (and then leave this to be included in a packaging effort of bootstrap-vz)? Yes, it would be worth packing independently. As it can be changed independent of bootstrap-vz and might even be used in other use cases without bootstrap-vz. Also bugs on this package will not get bootstrap-vz get removed from Debian. And if needed, install it in the image, even if not configured in /e/n/interfaces and thus not used. And then if it is small, the number of bugs shouldn't be that large. :-) > James /Anders J
