On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Antonio Rosales
antonio.rosa...@canonical.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Tim
On 11/07/14 02:47, Nate Finch wrote:
Late to the party, but +1 for OS-neutral names. Keep in mind, there's
no separate update/upgrade steps on Windows. There's no list of
software that exists that needs to get updated on Windows, as that is
done automatically. Luckily, it sounds like we
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Antonio Rosales
antonio.rosa...@canonical.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com
wrote:
I do just want to make the point that we are
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
I do just want to make the point that we are not just an ubuntu only
system any more, nor even linux only.
I'd prefer if we kept away
I do just want to make the point that we are not just an ubuntu only
system any more, nor even linux only.
I'd prefer if we kept away from terms like apt-get as it doesn't make
sense for windows nor centos. While we could certainly treat those
values differently on the other platforms, it
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales
antonio.rosa...@canonical.com wrote:
Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say apt-get-update
set to a boolean with the default being true. Existing
On 03/07/14 03:27, John Meinel wrote:
local provider is special. It generates a template image, and runs apt-get
update once there, and then clones and doesn't ever run it again. Also,
the template isn't destroyed by destroy-environment which means if you
tried out the local provider 3
I would just caution that we'd really prefer behavior to be consistent
across platforms and clouds, and if we can work with Microsoft to make
'apt-get update' faster in their cloud everyone wins who uses Ubuntu there,
not just us.
Have we looked into why Upgrade is taking 3m+? Is it the time to
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John Meinel j...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
I would just caution that we'd really prefer behavior to be consistent
across platforms and clouds, and if we can work with Microsoft to make
'apt-get update' faster in their cloud everyone wins who uses Ubuntu there,
Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say apt-get-update
set to a boolean with the default being true. Existing charms are
timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt-get
metadata. Users then can them make the choice, and we can make
suggestions in the docs as to
Hello Andrew,
I ran into a problem when Juju was no longer calling apt-get update. I
filed bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353
The problem appears to be the apt metadata was out of date and the charms
that call apt-get install ... in the install hook fail. We also saw this
...@canonical.com
Cc: juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional
Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say apt-get-update
set to a boolean with the default being true. Existing charms are
timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Matt Bruzek matthew.bru...@canonical.com
wrote:
Hello Andrew,
I ran into a problem when Juju was no longer calling apt-get update. I
filed bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353
Agreed -- I've fixed this problem multiple times in charms by
I actually don't see a problem with removing apt-get upgrade, but what
apt-get update? It's only 20s user time according to the original post. For
stale cloud images, local provider and manual, it's just a no brained.
Marco
On Jul 1, 2014 4:04 PM, David Britton david.brit...@canonical.com wrote:
With respect to the local provider, I had always intended there to be a
command in the local provider plugin (which is currently empty) that
updates the template image.
Tim
On 02/07/14 08:22, Marco Ceppi wrote:
I actually don't see a problem with removing apt-get upgrade, but what
apt-get
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales
antonio.rosa...@canonical.com wrote:
Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say apt-get-update
set to a boolean with the default being true. Existing charms are
timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt-get
16 matches
Mail list logo
