On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 2:12 AM Andrew Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:30 AM Andrew Wilkins < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:42 PM Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> There are two things that need to be done. The first, we need the >>> reactive framework to be ported to powershell - that way we can have charms >>> written in powershell and compiled as such. I know the cloud base folks >>> poked at that a bit in Gent during the Summit but I haven't heard much from >>> there. >>> >>> The second, is two base layers. The first is a powershell base layer so >>> you get the awesome powerhshell helpers cloudbase has created (like the >>> python charm helpers). That way native power shell layers can be written. >>> The second is to create a python-windows base layer, this would be the >>> basic layer and then the necessary methods to install Python on the windows >>> machine so that python layers work properly. >>> >>> Some of this we can pilot ourselves, (mostly the python-windows layer) - >>> some of the team is sprinting so I'll add that as a stretch goal. The >>> powershell native features we'll need help and I admit I've done a terrible >>> job keeping up with the cloudbase folks who have been invaluable as a >>> windows + juju resource thus far. >>> >> >> Thanks, Marco. FWIW, I had imagined an MVP just as Stuart described: add >> the Windows bootstrap scripts (install.ps1|bat|cmd, etc.), which should >> just need to install Python and then defer to the reactive framework. Going >> full Powershell support sounds ideal, but not what I'm after. >> > > Brief update: I managed to get a Hello World reactive charm running on a > Windows VM in Azure. > > My charm: > - includes the Python 3.5.1 web installer. It's reasonably small (just > under 1MiB). > - has a short PowerShell hook script (install.ps1) that installs Python > and PyYAML; and then defers to the standard Python hook (install.py) > > To enable private cloud deployments, it would probably make more sense for > the charm to require Python as a resource. I just did what I did for > expedience. > > I had to make a handful of changes to the basic layer, charm-helpers, and > charms.reactive. > In the basic layer, there are some Ubuntu assumptions that I had to > remove: it wants to apt-get install stuff. Also, I changed it to use > "python -m pip", rather than the pip command directly, which I didn't have > available. > > I had to make three classes of changes to charm-helpers and > charms.reactive: > - refer to hook tools as (e.g.) status-set.exe, rather than status-set > - don't require unix-specific Python modules, like "pwd" and "grp" > - run Python hooks with python(.exe), rather than assuming > shebang/executable > > If it's acceptable to do so, I'll propose changes to charmhelpers and > charms.reactive at some point. It would be nice to be able to have a core > set of Python helpers that work on all platforms. > I think instead it'd be better to break some of the charm helpers.core.hookenv methods to a simpler, streamlined, charms.juju or charms.hooktools where it is _just_ the juju hook-tools and nothing more. It's something we've talked about these last few months in ecosystems/juju list but haven't quite had the time to flesh out. > And just to be clear: I'm not suggesting that all all of charmhelpers > should be OS neutral; but at least the core bits for interacting with Juju, > and for writing reactive charms. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > Cheers, >> Andrew >> >> >>> Marco >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:46 AM Rick Harding <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I know that Gabriel and some of the CloudBase folks seemed interested >>>> in layers and possibly some tooling with powershell. I'm not sure how far >>>> that went but I thought they were experimenting during the charmer's >>>> summit. That would help with a charm build on windows, but not for some >>>> common code between both operating systems. >>>> >>>> An interesting thing is how much setup and how ootb the Ubuntu on >>>> Windows needs. If it's working out of the box, it might be an interesting >>>> move for us and our tools that Windows users could get a Linux experience. >>>> I guess that it won't be ideal though as I'm not sure what the server side >>>> plans around that work is. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:18 AM Andrew Wilkins < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to write a charm that should be mostly identical on >>>>> Windows and Linux, so I think it would make sense to have common code in >>>>> the form of a layer. >>>>> >>>>> Is anyone working on getting "charm build", layers, and friends to >>>>> work with Windows workloads? If not, I may look into it myself. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andrew >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
