Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm seeing this targeted for 1.22? On 11/09/2014 08:41 PM, Ian Booth wrote: > > > On 10/11/14 11:32, Michael Nelson wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins >> <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> Hi Sameer, >>> >>> The behaviour changed a few months ago to address a bug: >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1353442 >>> >>> Is this causing you problems, or were you just surprised/curious? >> >> >> Hi Andrew. This did cause a bug in the elasticsearch charm recently >> [1] - I'd not realised it was related to a juju change, but thought it >> was just a difference on ec2, that the private-address was not an IP >> address (I had only tested with local, canonistack and HP). >> > > Note that for the EC2 case, using the DNS name for the unit's public address > has > been reported as a bug, since in the case of split horizon DNS, the DNS name > resolves to a private IP address internally. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1308374 > > This bug is being fixed for the 1.21 Juju release, which we hope to get into > beta within the next day or so. > > >> The reason it caused an issue was because we were using the >> private-address as part of a firewall rule which required an IP >> address. We've pushed a fix now, but is there a way to foresee this >> kind of change in the future? Maybe for these changes which might >> affect charms, we could trigger retests for some set of approved >> charms across HP, ec2 etc.? >> >> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/elasticsearch/+bug/1386664 >> >
-- José Antonio Rey -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
