Bug#983691: Fwd: Re: Bug#983691: cloud.debian.org: provide images for vagrant-lxc/vagrant-lxd?
Forwarding this reply to the relevant bug
----- Forwarded message from Adam Bolte <abolte@systemsaviour.com> -----
From: Adam Bolte <abolte@systemsaviour.com>
To: debian-cloud@lists.debian.org
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:02:29 +1100
Subject: Re: Bug#983691: cloud.debian.org: provide images for vagrant-lxc/vagrant-lxd?
Message-ID: <[🔎] ee36375e-4382-2c10-2668-e2eb062088fc@systemsaviour.com>
X-Mailing-List: <debian-cloud@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/5353
List-Id: <debian-cloud.lists.debian.org>
On 1/3/21 1:06 am, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Should we provide images for the vagrant lxc or lxd plugin?
Debian stable doesn't currently have lxd, so my workplace uses vagrant-lxc
with this patch:
https://github.com/fgrehm/vagrant-lxc/pull/486
As a side note, we then patch Vagrant itself to fix a number of Salt bootstrap
issues that upstream doesn't want to address:
https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/9386/files
With these in place, vagrant-lxc + Salt is quite satisfactory (although I
personally would rather just use LXC directly without Vagrant if given the
choice).
Our Vagrant images are over here:
https://app.vagrantup.com/boxes/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sort=downloads&provider=&q=sitepoint
So currently our VirtualBox people (mostly macOS users) use the debian-cloud
debian/buster64 image, and our LXC people use our own
sitepoint/debian-buster-amd64 image which is a bit out of sync but close
enough.
I'm behind on packaging new stable release updates, although we don't
generally have much need to reprovision once setup. Having said that, having
debian-cloud maintain an image that we could substitute our custom one with
would make my life easier.
Adam
----- End forwarded message -----
Reply to: