[Bug 1347020] Re: systemd does not boot in a container

2015-11-22 Thread Jens Elkner
Today I upgraded our last utopic containers (~10) to vivid using do- release-upgrade: Everywhere the same: after reboot systemd is the only thing which is running in the container, but nothing else happens. It doesn't start anything! So the only way to get the stuff fixed is to manually attach to

[Bug 1347020] Re: systemd does not boot in a container

2015-06-07 Thread Jens Elkner
I'm running utopic with latest updates. Any container, which has systemd running simply hangs, when /sbin/init gets started (no matter, whether config has 'lxc.kmsg = 0' or not). Tried it previously with a trusty and today with a vivid container. So wondering, whether there is a bugfix available

[Bug 1432683] Re: apt-get install lxc doesn't load required apparmor profiles

2015-06-07 Thread Jens Elkner
It appears, that something is still broken. Because systemd doesn't work, I installed upstart + upstart-sysv (and uninstalled systemd- sysv), but unfortunately sssd doesn't come up (has exactly the same config, as in other 14.10 zones, where it works as expected). And because sssd doesn't come

[Bug 1424233] Re: RFE lxc: lxc should do a better jon of housekeeping containers

2015-03-10 Thread Jens Elkner
Yepp, and that's IMHO a design flaw. E.g. if one wants to distribute the load on iots storage, it might make sense, to distribute the zones of several storage devices, e.g. zone1 on JBOD1, zone2 on JBOD2, etc As said, the only thing, which lxc nees to track is a single config directory which

[Bug 1424253] Re: RFE: procps tools should support lxc

2015-03-10 Thread Jens Elkner
Actually that's not the same at all, because $cgroup != $lxc_name . Your workaround is absolutely user UNfriendly, i.e. still hard to read and for casual users inconvinient, because one needs supply all that many format options ... Anyway, I agree, that these utils should support such things out

[Bug 1424253] [NEW] RFE: procps tools should support lxc

2015-02-21 Thread Jens Elkner
Public bug reported: Container management/monitoring is currently a pain, because procps do not support container, i.e. there is no way to tell the tools to filter the output wrt. a certain zone or to add a column, which shows the zone name a process belongs to. E.g. for what is needed:

[Bug 1424233] Re: RFE lxc: lxc should do a better jon of housekeeping containers

2015-02-21 Thread Jens Elkner
** Package changed: upstart (Ubuntu) = lxc (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to lxc in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1424233 Title: RFE lxc: lxc should do a better jon of housekeeping containers To

[Bug 1418279] [NEW] Automount NFSv4 doesn't work

2015-02-04 Thread Jens Elkner
Public bug reported: I'm trying to use NFSv4 automount within an lxc container, however, it doesn't work (it works for Solaris zones, so that's not an server issue). cd /net/pkg/TAB /net/pkg/ not found cat /etc/auto.master /net-hosts +dir:/etc/auto.master.d +auto.master The following

[Bug 1394263] Re: lxc: unconditional overwrite of USE_LXC_BRIDGE

2014-11-20 Thread Jens Elkner
Well, it is strange: If there is such a setting in /etc/default/lxc, one usually assumes, that this is the master of the disaster and gets propagated downwards, but obviously it is not ... And thus I wonder, which files in the lxc forest need to be checked as well to avoid further surprises ...

[Bug 1394249] [NEW] lxc package dependencies over-constrained

2014-11-19 Thread Jens Elkner
Public bug reported: Obviously lxc does NOT depend on dnsmasq-base and thus this dependency should be lowered to optional or recommended. Today entities using containers already have proper DNS as well as DHCP servers and thus do not need at all another point of failure/possible weak

[Bug 1394263] [NEW] lxc: unconditional overwrite of USE_LXC_BRIDGE

2014-11-19 Thread Jens Elkner
Public bug reported: Defining USE_LXC_BRIDGE and than overwriting it unconditionally in the source /etc/default/lxc-net doesn't make sense/is confusing. ** Affects: lxc (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of

[Bug 1394352] [NEW] apparmor: Multiple definitions ... bailing out

2014-11-19 Thread Jens Elkner
Public bug reported: When one creates a incorrect profile, apparmor_parser seems to leave an artifact of the problem file in the same directory, which in turn leads to another error, when the file gets fixed. Not sure, how appamor stuff works, but this is simply an unacceptable behavior! It

[Bug 1393611] Re: pax is not POSIX compliant

2014-11-18 Thread Jens Elkner
** Package changed: ubuntu = pax (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to pax in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1393611 Title: pax is not POSIX compliant To manage notifications about this bug go to: