I agree. Packer is best suited for this. Thanks for the pointer. -T
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Wes McClure <[email protected]> wrote: > You might want to try packer: http://www.packer.io/ for the vanilla box > and then layer the rest of the provisioning with vagrant. > > If that doesn't jive, I'd be happy to brainstorm more ideas :) > > > On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Tennis Smith wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> There is a point in the "vagrant up" process that is exactly what I would >> like to keep as a vanilla box for future tests. >> >> Can "vagrant package" be called inside of a Vagrantfile? Bad idea? >> >> -T >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Vagrant" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vagrant-up/cdHsyTa75N4/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vagrant" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
