** Also affects: vm-builder (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: ubuntu-on-ec2
Status: New => Invalid
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414997
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubunt
** Changed in: vm-builder (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
** Changed in: vmbuilder
Status: New => Invalid
** Also affects: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubun
I've got a working implementation that checks if the user has changed
the file, and if not, reruns the script. I'm adding unit tests, so it'll
be another while before I'll upload.
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414997
You received this bug notific
I'm marking this Low based on my understanding of the importance
metrics, but since this can break a user's EC2 image on rebundling, I'd
love to see the fix released.
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Low
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.la
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Importance: Low => Medium
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414997
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to vm-builder in ubuntu.
--
Ubuntu-server-
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Milestone: None => ubuntu-9.10-beta
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414997
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to vm-builder in ubuntu.
--
Ubu
I'll make this argument one last time, then I promise to let it be.
I believe that the correct fix for this bug is the attached patch below.
What it does, is simply put comment headers in the files that are
modified by ec2-set-defaults to inform the user that they should be
modifying the template
simpler change, simply put the headers in the template files rather than
generating them on the fly.
** Attachment added: "modify template files in revision control directly"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32625522/bug414997-modify-template-files.diff
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_pe
The issue with the above patches (comment 6 and comment 7) is that they
possibly trump changes the user made that they intended to cross the re-
bundling. If the user made the change with a tool, then they possibly
wouldn't see the file and warning that was written in it. Such an
example is that
At the moment, I think there is no obvious solution here. I think I'm
pretty much at the conclusion that we should put a header in the
template files below, and not change anything else.
If the user wants to have the template system run on re-bundle, then they
should simply remove the lock file
Scott: What do you mean by "not change anything else"? If the user
modifies sources.list would a rebundled AMI overwrite their changes or
not?
I'm also not clear which is referenced in the last step. If it
is the AMI being created, then the user does not know the id yet.
--
ec2-set-defaults s
Here's where I've ended up. I think the most sane thing at the moment
is to simply document the current behavior.
** Attachment added: "simply document current behavior"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32628222/bug414997-simply-document-current-behavior.diff
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run
I'm removing the milestone for this. As I've personally come to the
conclusion that it is mostly functioning as it should.
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Milestone: ubuntu-9.10-beta => None
--
ec2-set-defaults should be 'run_once_per_ami'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414997
You received
I've talked with soren, and he said he's fine with any solution here.
As I've pointed out, I think that, at this point, this is reasonably
working. I'm closing this as 'Invalid'.
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Invalid
** Changed in: ec2-init (Ubuntu)
Assigne
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Eric Hammond wrote:
> Scott: What do you mean by "not change anything else"? If the user
> modifies sources.list would a rebundled AMI overwrite their changes or
> not?
I meant that we should leave ec2-init behavior as it is right now, with
'run-once-ever' for ec2-set-defaul
15 matches
Mail list logo
