On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com> wrote: > I think we need the required juju version even if we also allow people > to specify features. swift-storage could specify that it needs 'the > version of juju that configures lxc to allow loopback mounts', which > is a bug fix rather than a feature. Providing a feature flag for every > bug fix that a charm may depend on is impractical.
1) If you're developing for 1.20, then I think the compatible-1.20 flag mentioned above should work as you desire, until juju changes to the point where some feature is actively incompatible. (As stated above, I'm expecting there will be some degree of tuning the charm environment to the declared flags regardless.) 2) Expand on the impracticality a bit please? I imagine that when we're talking about bugfixes of the sort you describe, the proportion of charms that care about a given one will be small; tracking them all may be somewhat *tedious* for the developers, but I don't see it being especially difficult or risky -- and AFAICS it need not impact any charm developers other than those who need that specific flag. ...not that I'm really keen to define a flag for every bugfix :-/. Do you have a rough idea of how often you've wanted min-version so far? Cheers William -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
