Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional

[Tim Penhey]

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 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.britton at canonical.com
> <mailto:david.britton at canonical.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Matt Bruzek
>     <matthew.bruzek at canonical.com <mailto:matthew.bruzek at 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
>     making the first step apt-get upgrade.  Which always seemed a bit
>     wasteful to me. :)
> 
>     It happens more on the local provider since those images are copied
>     from templates which are not rebuilt until you remove them (do
>     lxc-ls --fancy to see them).  So, the templates package cache goes
>     out of date, and your cloned machine also goes out of date.
> 
>     -- 
>     David Britton <david.britton at canonical.com
>     <mailto:david.britton at canonical.com>>
> 
>     --
>     Juju-dev mailing list
>     Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> 
> 
>