Thanks. :-) I do hope we can also to get local provider working inside the container as well, since it will provide a cleaner set of instructions for new charmers to test their charms, or just play around with Juju. But the --net=host workaround gives us immediate wins in CI, review, and development.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 March 2015 at 23:50, sheila miguez <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Jorge O. Castro <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> let's you just try Juju, with the limitation that you can't do the >>> local provider. >> >> >> I definitely appreciate the ability to test something isolated from my >> system. I was trying to accomplish this by nesting linux containers so that >> I could use the local provider from juju within a container, but did not get >> it to work. > > And I don't think Jorge is totally correct. The reason why Docker is > an awesome choice here (I'd normally prefer one less moving part and > use LXC for this), is the magic --net=host option which makes the > container's network interface the same as the hosts network interface. > This sounds insane, until you realize that it means that juju running > inside the container can control the local provider environment > running outside of the container. So kudos to whoever on the team > realized this, allowing my tests to make all the mess they like in the > vm while keeping my host nice and clean. > > (it may be possible to do the same thing with LXC by port forwarding > the api port inside the container to the host, but docker has this > built in). > > -- > Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
