On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:00 AM Adam Collard <adam.coll...@canonical.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 at 04:02 Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On IRC, someone was lamenting the fact that the Ubuntu charm takes longer
> to deploy now, because it has been updated to exercise more of Juju's
> features.  My response was - just make a minimal charm, it's easy.  And
> then of course, I had to figure out how minimal you can get.  Here it is:
>
> It's just a directory with a metadata.yaml in it with these contents:
>
> name: min
> summary: nope
> description: nope
> series:
>   - xenial
>
> (obviously you can set the series to whatever you want)
> No other files or directories are needed.
>
>
> This is neat, but doesn't detract from the bloat in the ubuntu charm.
>

I'm happy to work though changes to the Ubuntu charm to decrease "bloat".


> IMHO the bloat in the ubuntu charm isn't from support for Juju features,
> but the switch to reactive plus conflicts in layer-base wanting to a)
> support lots of toolchains to allow layers above it to be slimmer and b) be
> a suitable base for "just deploy me" ubuntu.
>

But it is to support the reactive framework, where we utilize newer Juju
features, like status and application-version to make the charm rich
despite it's minimal goal set. Honestly, a handful of cached wheelhouses
and some apt packages don't strike me as bloat, but I do want to make sure
the Ubuntu charm works for those using it. So,

What's the real problem with the Ubuntu charm today?
How does it not achieve it's goal of providing a relatively blank Ubuntu
machine? What are people using the Ubuntu charm for?

Other than demos, hacks/workarounds, and testing I'm not clear on the
purpose of an Ubuntu charm in a model serves.

Marco
-- 
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev

Reply via email to