Quoting Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com): > Yeah, I saw that post. Was hoping for a bit more. But ok, Vagrant is > a Ruby thingy vaguely like libvirt. > > Another peanut gallery question: > > There seem to be a number of userspace packages that drive the > kernel's LXC features: > - lxc itself > - lxc python api ( > https://www.stgraber.org/2012/09/28/introducing-the-python-lxc-api/ )
Well the API is our preferred way for external apps to interface with lxc. So these aren't actually in conflict. > - libvirt > - now vagrant > > I suppose it would be foolish to assume that a common api would > always be better than having each high-level virtualization package > roll its own lxc support, but... still... is it worth providing a ruby binding > for the lxc api, and having vagrant use that? Or would that simply be extra > overhead? I think that would definately be worth it. (Right now it's using the lxc command line tools instead.) But someone who writes ruby would have to export it :) -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
