On 10/04/14 12:00, Stuart Bishop wrote: > On 10 April 2014 17:42, John Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: >> All hooks are run sequentially (we explicitly take out a lock across all >> hooks that want to run on a machine), just so that charms can do whatever >> they want with apt without stepping on each other's toes. >> >> I would think "install" is the most likely hook to actually do update and >> install. I'm not sure about a charm ever doing "upgrade" since that would >> upgrade other packages, right? > Right. I'm wondering if that is the responsibility of the charm, or of > other management systems like Landscape or configuring unattended > security updates. > > At the moment I do have a charm that does an upgrade, and it does > upgrade everything. I suspect I should remove that line.
Yes, I would suggest that charms should focus on their specific workload, not the system as a whole. That said, there can be bad results if, for example, the package listing is out of date. If you try to apt-get a package, and the package listing is way out of date, you'll be told the package cannot be found (because newer versions have replaced it in the archive). Updating the package *listing* is non-destructive, so an "apt-get update" is perfectly reasonable. After that, a charm can "apt-get install foo" and know it will get the current version. >> There isn't a process in juju today that does regular "keep my machines up >> to date" but you do have "juju run sudo apt-get update" if you want to do it >> manually. > There is 'upgrade-charm'. I could argue that upgrade-charm should do a > full update, so the new version of the charm is running with all the > dependencies it was tested with. But I can argue the other way too :D Is it possible to use APT to upgrade just a single piece of software and its dependencies? If so, that would be appropriate, yes. Mark -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
