Re: kvm on lxd guidance?

2016-12-16 Thread Reed O'Brien
I'm sorted. Thanks to those that replied. On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 18:33 Reed O'Brien wrote: > Is there anyone around tomorrow North American time or sometime (any > timezone) next week who can guide me through getting kvm running on lxd > locally on my system? > > To be

Re: Canonical Distribution of Kubernetes 1.5.1 is here

2016-12-16 Thread Adam Stokes
At least on the mobile site the install instructions are not properly formatted (under getting started) On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 6:14 PM Jorge O. Castro wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm happy to announce that 1.5.1 is here, all charms have been pushed and > it's ready to go.

Canonical Distribution of Kubernetes 1.5.1 is here

2016-12-16 Thread Jorge O. Castro
Hello everyone, I'm happy to announce that 1.5.1 is here, all charms have been pushed and it's ready to go. Please refer to this blog post for the lengthy changelog, enjoy! http://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/12/16/announcing-canonical-kubernetes-1-5-1/ -- Jorge Castro Canonical Ltd.

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread Stuart Bishop
On 16 December 2016 at 22:33, Katherine Cox-Buday < katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread Stuart Bishop
On 16 December 2016 at 22:33, Katherine Cox-Buday < katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to >

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread David Britton
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT > > archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors > to take a hard-right

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread David Britton
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0600, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > Tim Penhey writes: > > > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT > > archive. > > Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors > to take a hard-right

[Review Queue]: ghost, znc, IBM-*

2016-12-16 Thread Kevin Monroe
Hi Juju, Cory, Kostas, Pete, and I waded through https://review.jujucharms.com/ this week. Here's what we found: - ghost - https://review.jujucharms.com/reviews/62 - Ghost is a simple, powerful publishing platform. - The charm is in a good shape (24th

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday
Tim Penhey writes: > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded as resources? I know one of our long-standing

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

2016-12-16 Thread Katherine Cox-Buday
Tim Penhey writes: > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded as resources? I know one of our long-standing

Re: AZs and placement

2016-12-16 Thread Martin Packman
On 16/12/2016, Brent Clements wrote: > This is great info. > > I apologize for my ignorance but what would that, as placement for each > unit, look like in a bundle? For each application, it can look something like this: an-application: charm: ./a-charm

A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta3, is here!

2016-12-16 Thread Curtis Hovey-Canonical
A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta3, is here! ## What's new? * Deployments to LXD containers on Xenial use the more performant directory backend https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1648513 * Constraints placed on KVM containers in bundles are honoured * Juju SSH improvements for the

A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta3, is here!

2016-12-16 Thread Curtis Hovey-Canonical
A new development release of Juju, 2.1-beta3, is here! ## What's new? * Deployments to LXD containers on Xenial use the more performant directory backend https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1648513 * Constraints placed on KVM containers in bundles are honoured * Juju SSH improvements for the

AZs and placement

2016-12-16 Thread Martin Packman
There have been a couple of reports of Juju struggling with availability zones recently. This isn't new code, it was introduced in 1.20, but with 2.0 it appears that we're not surfacing errors from improper zone selection[1], which is a particular issue when we also seem to not be selecting a