I'm pretty sure if you "apt-get install foo" and there is a newer foo, it
will upgrade it. However, I don't think it upgrades the chain of
dependencies, unless maybe if there are declared conflicts? I've certainly
tried out the "how do I upgrade one package" and "apt-get install" was the
answer I f
On 10/04/14 12:00, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On 10 April 2014 17:42, John Meinel wrote:
>> All hooks are run sequentially (we explicitly take out a lock across all
>> hooks that want to run on a machine), just so that charms can do whatever
>> they want with apt without stepping on each other's toes.
On 10 April 2014 17:42, John Meinel wrote:
> All hooks are run sequentially (we explicitly take out a lock across all
> hooks that want to run on a machine), just so that charms can do whatever
> they want with apt without stepping on each other's toes.
>
> I would think "install" is the most like
I think that on new machines (at least on the bootstrap node) apt-get
update and apt-get upgrade is done when starting. I'm not too sure about
it, though. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to get the latest version of
a package.
On 04/10/2014 05:00 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Should a charm
All hooks are run sequentially (we explicitly take out a lock across all
hooks that want to run on a machine), just so that charms can do whatever
they want with apt without stepping on each other's toes.
I would think "install" is the most likely hook to actually do update and
install. I'm not su
Hi.
Should a charm be responsible for running 'apt-get update', 'apt-get
upgrade' etc?
If so, which hooks should invoke this behavior?
Of course, sometimes a charm has no choice about 'apt-get update', for
example when a config-changed hook needs to add a PPA.
--
Stuart Bishop
--
Juju maili
