[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#787298: (no subject)

On 2015-05-31 13:01:54, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi, 

Hi Martin,

> If we want to provide a vagrant box, that is an official image, i think
> our users will expect any of those provisioning providers to work out of
> the box.
> Thus including those into the vagrant default box makes sense.
> Cheers,
> Martin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work!

Honestly I do not know anybody who is using vagrant boxes without any
additional configuration.

All people I know messing around with them. So I think having minimal base and
allow users to build on top of it is a good thing.
I also have to agree that having base minimal box and multiply boxes with
different provisioners is having lots of sense; only problem with it may be
maintenance overhead but as Jan wrote this can be overcome with automated
build process.

Marcin, who is a heavy user of vagrant at work as well :-)

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: