Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:46:17AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 03:41:03PM -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 04:46:31PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > I'll leave this to Stéphane, as he's pretty keen on leaving the # > > > > commands > > > > low. As you say we might eventually be able to deprecate lxc-clone, and > > > > lxc-copy might eventually be a nice hook for migration. > > > > > > That'd be fine with me I think, bonus point if we can somehow merge > > > lxc-start-ephemeral in there and kill two birds with one stone > > > (lxc-clone & lxc-start-ephemeral). > > > > > > The timeline for this would be having lxc-copy in 1.2 with both > > > lxc-clone and lxc-start-ephemeral doing arg swapping + re-exec tricks > > > with a warning that they'll go away for good in 2.0. > > > > > > How does that sound? > > > > Sounds good! I'm on it! > > > > Christian > > In the current python implementation of lxc-start-ephemeral we generate a > pre-mount and post-stop script. The post-stop script seems to be used to > destroy > the container. For the rewrite in C and the merge with lxc-clone I thought > about > using a simple snapshot-clone with c->clone() with a random name, start it > c->start() and when the container is shutdown destroy it with c->destroy(). > This seems cleaner to me then generating scripts. Are there any reasons to not > do it this way? And if so what would you prefer?
If you can do this robustly and cleanly then I prefer this. _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
