Question about simplestreams and imagemetadata

[Scott Moser]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:

> On 06/08/13 12:03, Scott Moser wrote:
> > I'll talk to be on this today. When we first did the data for azure,
> > this difference was by design, as I didn't consider sure images to be
> > the same product as other Ubuntu cloud images. They behaved
> > differently at boot because cloud-init did not drive initial
> > provisioning.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for following up.  I suppose that the images being inside the cloud
> makes their differences a non-problem...  As long as images are confined to a

Placement of an image doesn't matter.  The idea of the 'product-id' is
that the user can expect certain behaviors wherever they see this.  The
intent is that it is not unlike an abi version string.

The behavior of juju not finding something on azure that matched its
expectations is actually working as designed.  There is nothing on azure
that has been released by Ubuntu that would meet its expectation of
behavior for anything other than 'com.ubuntu.cloud:13.10:amd64'.


> cloud, there's no reasonable way to specify e.g. an EC2 image for an Azure VM
> by mistake.
>
>
> > Since  we now have that fixed (at least for saucy) we can update the
> > product id. ideally we'd wait to do so on precise until the SRUs have
> > gone through.
>
> What are the reasons for waiting?  Do we know of any other, Azure-supporting
> simplestreams clients that might be affected?

At this point, it doesn't matter too much.  Juju is the only machine
consuming this data with regularity. But in the future we're not
arbitrarily stamping a "com.ubuntu.cloud:X.Y:arch" on something that
doesn't meet expectations. That wont help anyone.

> I'm asking because I'm not only eager to get this working, but also anxious
> about third-party code starting to rely on the current IDs before we change
> them.

Our concerns are basically the same then. I'm concerned about making false
promises and breaking people's expectations.

I'll look at what it would take.  AT least initially, we may only drop
':azure' on 13.10 images and wait to rename others until they're fixed.

I'm actually interested in what value you see from doing that rename?
Juju *will not work* with anything other than 13.10 daily images on azure,
so why should I advertise something to juju that will just confuse it?