Re: LXD polish for xenial

... > So the plan as I understand it is that we're planning on updating Bundles >> to use the term "lxd" as the container they are requesting. And then >> updating the deployer and other tools to understand that they need to >> translate that back to LXC for Juju-1.X. The rationale is that we

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Thanks for explaining, John, that makes sense and really helps me understand the reasoning behind these changes. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:30 PM John Meinel wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nate Finch > wrote: > >> Then I guess I

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > Then I guess I don't understand why it worked fine up until last week. > So up until last week LXD depended on the 'lxc1' package which was the old tools for creating containers. That did always set up an 'lxcbr0'

Re: hacking upload tools for development

I wonder what the best way for this to work might be. Presumably it would have to establish something (a local server? A temporary directory?) and then juju would need to run in that context. Are you imagining some kind of wrapper command that would set up the tools and then run the juju command?

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On 18/04/2016, Tycho Andersen wrote: >> >> Unlike other providers, lxd exposes no way to use the daily images >> instead of release images, so at present any machine using lxd >> containers with juju for the first time will get the xenial beta2 >> image then upgrade

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On 18/04/2016, Martin Packman wrote: > > "autopkgtest lxd provider tests fail for 2.0" > > > So, at present we don't have confidence that the LXD provider will > work, even with the manual

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, John Meinel wrote: > ... > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman < >>> martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled on retaining the 'lxc' and 'lxd'

Re: hacking upload tools for development

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-04-19 05:19 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > > > On 14/04/16 19:38, Aaron Bentley wrote: Hi there. > > I've done a lot of work with simplestreams lately, and we've got > some decent tools for generating them quickly and easily. I'd be > happy

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Then I guess I don't understand why it worked fine up until last week. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 10:39 AM Tycho Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +, Nate Finch wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel >

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +, Nate Finch wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel wrote: > > > ... > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - > >>> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel wrote: > ... >>> >> > >> >>> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - >>> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not lxcbr0. If the user >>> already has lxc setup in some fashion there's a

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:31 PM Nicholas Skaggs < nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Marco Ceppi > wrote: > >> Thanks so much for spending time on this polish! It'll really help our >> user experience shine for cost effective dev.

Re: LXD polish for xenial

> > ... >> > > >> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - >> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not lxcbr0. If the user >> already has lxc setup in some fashion there's a different error from >> juju telling them to run the dpkg-reconfigure command. That

Re: LXD polish for xenial

... > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman >> wrote: >> >>> When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled >>> on retaining the 'lxc' and 'lxd' name distinction in 2.0 - which does >>> mean bundles have to be manually changed at

Re: hacking upload tools for development

On 14/04/16 19:38, Aaron Bentley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi there. I've done a lot of work with simplestreams lately, and we've got some decent tools for generating them quickly and easily. I'd be happy to work with someone from core to develop a tool to