On 10/04/2010 02:54 PM, Helmut Lichtenberg wrote: > Hi Daniel, > Daniel Lezcano schrieb am 04. Oct 2010 um 14:45:33 CEST: >> actually the configuration file passed to lxc-debian is supposed to be >> concatenate with the default specified in the template. >> I admit that can look weird :) > > it's not a real problem for me, but maybe it's a (design) problem of > separating the scripts and the definition of (default) values. On the long > term, it is not the best way to urge the user to look into the source to find > the defaults. > > And what happens, if you have conflicting options?
I agree with this point, I think that should be changed. What I have in mind is to modify the distro package installation, the ubuntu one for the moment, in order to ask for a default network virtualization installation, macvlan or bridge + veth. The script will be in charge to configure the system with the bridge and store the information in /etc/lxc-default.conf (or whatever). The template will use the information stored in this file to complete the configuration for the container. In case the configuration is specified to lxc-create, then this one will replace the default provided by the template. That will make the host and the container more consistent and will satisfy the people complaining they have to configure the network themselves for the host. As that will be the package installer which will be in charge of that, lxc does not have to care about what kind of distros it is running on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
