Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional

[Andrew Wilkins]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Marco Ceppi <marco.ceppi at canonical.com>
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.
>
This is actually what I was proposing: that we disable *only* the upgrade.
We still need to update to get the packages we need anyway, and as others
have pointed out there are issues with not updating the index.

> Marco
> On Jul 1, 2014 4:04 PM, "David Britton" <david.britton at canonical.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Matt Bruzek <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  So, the templates package cache goes out of date, and your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 cloned machine also goes out of date.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>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>>
>>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140702/153760c6/attachment.html>