On 16/08/16 12:58, Tim Penhey wrote: > > > On 16/08/16 10:50, Ian Booth wrote: >> >> On 16/08/16 03:09, Nate Finch wrote: >>> Ian, can you describe how Juju decides if it's running for a developer or >>> an end user? I'm worried this could trip people up who are both end users >>> and happen to have a juju development environment. >>> >> >> It's not so much Juju deciding - the use cases given were from the point of >> view >> of a developer or end user. >> >> Juju will decide that it can automatically fallback to try to find and use a >> local jujud (so long as the version of the jujud found matches that of the >> Juju >> client being used to bootstrap or upgrade) if: >> >> - the Juju client version is newer than the agents running >> - the client or agents have a build number > 0 >> >> (the build number is 0 for released Juju agents but non zero when jujud is >> used >> or built locally from source). > > But this isn't entirely true is it? The build number is a horrible hack > involving a version override file. > > When I build jujud locally from source there is no version override and it is > just the version as defined in the code I'm building. >
My wording was sadly suboptimal. The agent reports a version containing a non-zero build number if uploaded or built from source. So I was trying to refer to the version that the client had reported to it. -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
