On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> wrote:
> I actually don't see a problem with removing apt-get upgrade, but what > apt-get update? It's only 20s user time according to the original post. For > stale cloud images, local provider and manual, it's just a no brained. > This is actually what I was proposing: that we disable *only* the upgrade. We still need to update to get the packages we need anyway, and as others have pointed out there are issues with not updating the index. > Marco > On Jul 1, 2014 4:04 PM, "David Britton" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Matt Bruzek <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hello Andrew, >>> >>> I ran into a problem when Juju was no longer calling "apt-get update". >>> I filed bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353 >>> >>> >> Agreed -- I've fixed this "problem" multiple times in charms by making >> the first step apt-get upgrade. Which always seemed a bit wasteful to me. >> :) >> >> It happens more on the local provider since those images are copied from >> templates which are not rebuilt until you remove them (do lxc-ls --fancy to >> see them). So, the templates package cache goes out of date, and your >> cloned machine also goes out of date. >> >> -- >> David Britton <[email protected]> >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> >> > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
