On 19 May 2017 at 03:13, Tim Penhey wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Currently juju will update the status of any hook execution for any unit to
> show that it is busy doing things. This was all well and good until we do
> things based on time.
>
> Every five minutes (or so) each unit will have the update-s
Hi,
Just a heads up to say that we're planning on changing the "juju login"
command on juju tip soon so that (by default) it logs into a controller
not a username. This is a backwardly incompatible change - to
get the old behaviour, there will be a new "-u" flag.
This has landed in a feature bran
On 16 January 2017 at 22:13, Merlijn Sebrechts
wrote:
> Exactly what I need, thanks!
Cool, glad it's appreciated :)
Note that you will still need to manually change your DNS entry to point
to the controller IP addresses or host names so that letsencrypt
can resolve the DNS name.
I have some tho
OK, I've found the issue. Your metadata.yaml specifies "trusty" twice
in the "series" attribute.
Specifying it only once should allow you to release.
We should produce a better error message for this case (or just
de-duplicate series).
cheers,
rog.
On 3 January 2017 at 12:17, Merlijn Sebre
On 4 January 2017 at 15:34, roger peppe wrote:
> a dep option
I meant to say "a deploy option" here.
--
Juju mailing list
Juju@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
On 4 January 2017 at 14:35, Vance Morris wrote:
> It's worse than a waste: it managed to confused the hell out of me. I had no
> idea that there even was a thing called "juju-deployer" that was separate
> from "juju deploy".
>
> Seems to me that if a model already has machines 0 and 1 deployed,
store that I used the
> incorrect jupiter-notebook-spark.
>
> 2017-01-04 11:04 GMT+01:00 roger peppe :
>>
>> On 3 January 2017 at 13:05, Merlijn Sebrechts
>> wrote:
>> > I have the same issue in the staging charm store.
>> >
>> >
>> > ch
On 3 January 2017 at 13:05, Merlijn Sebrechts
wrote:
> I have the same issue in the staging charm store.
>
>
> charm release cs:~tengu-team/jupyter-notebook-spark-0
> ERROR cannot release charm or bundle: cannot publish charm or bundle: cannot
> update base entity for "cs:~tengu-team/jupyter-note
Interesting. Thanks for the report.
That's an error I don't think we've seen before, and I can't reproduce
the problem immediately
on one of my own charms.
Do you see the same issue if you try and publish and release the same
charm in the
staging charmstore (set
JUJU_CHARMSTORE=https://api.stagin
Log size limits are great, and a necessary thing, but for me the
crucial thing is to have some final fail safe if disk space does
end up getting critically low for *any* reason. Almost all the really
borked Juju installations I've seen have been due to running out of disk space.
Shutting down the
On 28 September 2016 at 14:55, Rick Harding wrote:
> This is just a miss. The original ability to see the plugins was a subset of
> the help command and didn't make our CLI spreadsheet for things to rework. I
> agree that list-plugins is the right idea here and that means that plugins
> becomes a
It seems to me that this kind of thing is exactly what "blocks" are
designed for. An explicit unblock command seems better to me than either an
explicit flag or an extra prompt, both of which are vulnerable to typing
without thinking. Particularly if "throwaway" controllers created for
testing purp
There is a PR that's soon to land [edit: just landed] that will change the Juju
API so that controller-level RPC calls can no longer
be executed on a model-specific connection.
https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/5986
This is a breaking API change.
The affected facades are the following:
AllM
mount ?
On 18 June 2016 at 09:23, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> We can change a CLI until RC, and its good for us to debate them.
>
> Here are the guiding principles.
>
> * shorter is better, much much better
> * we strongly prefer one word to always mean the same thing
> * we strongly prefer a
On 8 June 2016 at 10:41, Andrew Wilkins wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We're in the midst of making some changes to model configuration in Juju
> 2.0, separating out things that are not model specific from those that are.
> For many things this is very clear-cut, and for other things not so much.
>
> For
On 7 April 2016 at 17:34, Reed O'Brien wrote:
>> Do you want to NAT the IPv4 traffic? n
>
> You do want to NAT the traffic, unless you have routing explicitly setup.
Ah, thanks. I knew it must be something stupid like that.
It now bootstraps and works OK, yay! Thanks Reed.
--
Juju mailing list
to enter the CIDR netmask as a bit len, e.g. 24 rather than
> as 255.255.255.0.
>
> See
> https://github.com/reedobrien/juju-notes/blob/master/writing-a-ci-test.md
> and the section on LXD for my personal notes about a working config.
>
> HTH,
> Reed
>
> On Thu, Apr 7
ection if LXD looks to be improperly configured.
>
> https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/4984
>
>
> I'm trying to land that now.
>
> John
> =:->
>
> On Apr 7, 2016 6:19 PM, "roger peppe" wrote:
>
> To add to this conversation, I have encountered
To add to this conversation, I have encountered this issue today
and have been unable to resolve it so far in the limited time
I've been able to spend on it.
I'm running on Trusty; I have the new version of lxd and the
latest version of Juju tip.
In my case, the issue seems to be that my lcdbr0 i
On 23 March 2016 at 15:06, David Ames wrote:
> On 03/21/2016 06:54 PM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
>>
>> On 22 March 2016 at 11:42, Rick Harding
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that went out and is ok Stuart. The charmstore update is
>>> deployed
>>> and when you upload a multi-series charm to the charmstor
If the released Juju 2.0 uses v5 of the charmstore API (which it will
soon hopefully anyway when my branch to support the new publishing
model lands), then there's a straightforward solution here, I think:
change v4 of the charmstore API to refuse to serve min-juju-version
charm archives to clients
associated info
hangs around.
Having the credential info associated with the relation itself would be perfect.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:17 AM roger peppe
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16 March 2016 at 12:31, Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar
On 16 March 2016 at 12:31, Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> We're starting to think about the next development cycle, and gathering
>> priorities and requests from users of Juju. I'm writing to outline some
>> current topi
The charm directory is held in Context.CharmDir.
See http://godoc.org/github.com/juju/gocharm/hook#Context.
On 1 June 2015 at 19:35, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> Does it possible to determine charm dir using go bindings?
> I need absolute path to charm dir to get files from assets dir in
> various pl
the
> *topology* independent of scale. With bundle composition, this allows us
> to have a root bundle which describes the services and configuration and
> relationships, and bundles that include it but map the topology to
> specific scales (by adding the desired units).
>
>
With the new bundle format [1] we recently discovered there is a problem
with respect to the service num_units field - bundles migrated to the
new format would always gain a num_units: 1 field which is wrong when
the service uses a subordinate charm.
We'd like to propose that when the num_units fi
On 24 April 2015 at 14:33, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2015-04-23 20:31 GMT+03:00 roger peppe :
>> Ah! After looking at your code, I think I might know what your
>> question means. Do you mean "If I call RegisterRelation, why
>> does gocharm not generate relation hooks for
On 23 April 2015 at 16:01, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> 2015-04-23 11:00 GMT+03:00 roger peppe :
>> Nice start!
>>
>> As far as I can see the issue is just that there's
>> a variant syntax of a relation that's allowed in the metadata
>> (I replied in the
Nice start!
As far as I can see the issue is just that there's
a variant syntax of a relation that's allowed in the metadata
(I replied in the issue itself).
I had a brief look at your hooks.go file. I'd suggest that
it's probably better to register the hooks individually,
rather than using the s
For those Juju fans that also like Go:
http://rogpeppe.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/gocharm-juju-charms-in-go/
Enjoy!
--
Juju mailing list
Juju@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
On 5 December 2013 18:52, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 04/12/13 17:34, Peter Waller wrote:
>> This situation is now resolved with thanks to Roger, Gustavo and
>> others in real time. There is no way we could have resolved it
>> ourselves since there was corruption of the juju database caused by
>
On 5 December 2013 18:52, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> On 04/12/13 17:34, Peter Waller wrote:
>> This situation is now resolved with thanks to Roger, Gustavo and
>> others in real time. There is no way we could have resolved it
>> ourselves since there was corruption of the juju database caused by
>
tu.juju:13.10:armhf
>> com.ubuntu.juju:13.10:i386 com.ubuntu.juju:14.04:amd64
>> com.ubuntu.juju:14.04:armhf com.ubuntu.juju:14.04:i386]}]
>> 2013-11-29 16:01:20 DEBUG juju.environs.simplestreams simplestreams.go:889
>> finding products at path "streams/v1/com.ubuntu.juj
Oh, that's odd; 1.14.1 was definitely found by your tools earlier.
What does:
juju upgrade-juju --version 1.14.1 --debug
print?
On 29 November 2013 15:57, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 29 November 2013 15:51, roger peppe wrote:
>>
>> > What's the best way to
On 29 November 2013 15:35, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 29 November 2013 14:59, roger peppe wrote:
>>
>> Have you verified that disk space has actually been freed up?
>
>
> Yup.
>
>>
>> Assuming so, have you tried restarting juju-db ?
>
>
> Nop
On 29 November 2013 15:35, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 29 November 2013 14:59, roger peppe wrote:
>>
>> Have you verified that disk space has actually been freed up?
>
>
> Yup.
>
>>
>> Assuming so, have you tried restarting juju-db ?
>
>
> Nop
gt;
>
> On 29 November 2013 12:40, Peter Waller wrote:
>>
>> I've replied off-list to Roger with URLs to the logs. I'm happy for them
>> to be shared internally between juju developers and to share them with
>> anyone who is interested.
>>
>>
>> O
On 29 November 2013 11:44, Peter Waller wrote:
> The pids appear to be constant since I last reported them. Your theory about
> the machine being out of disk is correct.
>
> Indeed the log files are 1.4 and 1.6 GB for all-machines and machine-0.log.
> I'll try xz'ing them and then sending them alo
On 29 November 2013 10:26, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 17:44, Peter Waller wrote:
>>
>> I'm still having the problem of it spinning, every few seconds all of the
>> machines are still spewing into the logs, despite my attempt at asking it to
>> "upgrade" to a different version.
>
>
I've just realised that all the traffic for this thread was actually
in juju-dev,
so I'll revert to there. Another cross post then, my apologies.
On 7 November 2013 09:21, roger peppe wrote:
> On 6 November 2013 20:07, Kapil Thangavelu
> wrote:
>> instead of adding more c
On 6 November 2013 20:07, Kapil Thangavelu
wrote:
> instead of adding more complexity and concepts, it would be ideal if we
> could reuse the primitives we already have. ie juju environments have three
> user exposed services, that users can add-unit / remove-unit etc. they have
> a juju prefix a
41 matches
Mail list logo
