Den 23 apr 2014 17:31 skrev "James Bromberger" <james@rcpt.to>:
>
> On 23/04/2014 11:09 PM, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>
>> My initial take is that this seems a reasonable approach, if we
>> The key mitigating difference I think, is:
>> a) this is really needed for some VPC cloud use cases
>> b) no users who don't need this functionality will be impacted (please confirm)
>
>
> I don't believe there is any impact on users who dont need this functionality at all. We can review the code as well (its just pure shell). From my quick look tonight the only dependency appears to be on iproute2 (/sbin/ip).
The dependency on iproute2 is an OK dependency. I believe it is needed in any network settings already.
>> An alternative approach (if it technically works) would be to still
>> package it in backports, but to use cloud-init itself to install the
>> package and bring up the interfaces. However, the timing of it might
>> not work at all, and even if it does it might be overly complicated?
>
>
> I think we're thinking the same thing - possible catch-22 there on needing the interface up to apply the package at boot time (instead of image creation time). Would this pair of scripts be useful outside of EC2 - is it worth packaging if it is only ever used here as part of bootstrap-vz (and then leave this to be included in a packaging effort of bootstrap-vz)?
Yes, it would be worth packing independently. As it can be changed independent of bootstrap-vz and might even be used in other use cases without bootstrap-vz.
Also bugs on this package will not get bootstrap-vz get removed from Debian.
And if needed, install it in the image, even if not configured in /e/n/interfaces and thus not used.
And then if it is small, the number of bugs shouldn't be that large. :-)
> James
/Anders J