Sorry, should have been clearer. Yes, I am working on fixing those issues with the tests. We're also trying to get a new source release this week that can be put the the archive, this package can't move forward without that.
"LXD v2.0.0-rc8 does not work with Juju v2.0-beta3" <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/2016-April/005339.html> Also as of this morning our unit tests on master break because the xenial daily image now includes lxd 2.0.0 rather than rc9, which again changes behaviour. Martin Pitt: We currently don't have lxd as a dep on this package because it's included by default on the image. If I add it (as a depends, or recommends), does that mean our autopkgtests including the lxd provider ones will run on new lxd package uploads and prevent them entering the archive in future? The image import can likely be dropped, the 'yenial' is a test about catching breakage due to a new ubuntu development release, but we probably don't need to actually start lxd containers in the fake new release for the coverage we want. Thanks for the info on the meaning of the various flags. For now I think we do need isolation-machine (keep having bugs where networking interfaces etc get created wrongly) but will look at just using restriction-container later. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1545913 Title: [FFe] juju-core 2.0 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/juju-core/+bug/1545913/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
