[06:03] <msitarz> Hi
[06:04] <msitarz> could somebody tell me how does cloud-init decide which network interface to configure?
[07:36] <harmw> smoser: ifup $interface
[07:36] <harmw> damn
[07:36] <harmw> ok, Ill make some adjustments
[07:37] <harmw> udhcpc will put the interface where it's gotten an address on in the environment, yes, as $interface
[07:38] <harmw> and disabling would be done in /etc/networking/interfaces, so no need for a DISABLED (which Ill remove)
[08:29] <msitarz> harmw: is that related to my question ?
[08:32] <harmw> haha no, sorry :)
[08:56] <harmw> I should've bzr copied the default.script btw, since now it looks like cirros-dhcpc is completely new - which it obviously isn't
[08:57] <harmw> anyway, smoser , the merge request is updated
[12:46] <smoser> msitarz, it doesn't. 
[12:46] <smoser> system configuration tells it.
[12:47] <smoser> on ubuntu, it blocks on anything 'auto' in /etc/network/interfaces.
[13:17] <msitarz> smoser: so cloud-init does not setup the network
[13:17] <msitarz> but the default OS configuration is just setup to use DHCP , that's why I get IP on eth0 ?
[13:18] <smoser> right.
[13:18] <smoser> thats how i would think things should work
[13:18] <smoser> eth0 should be expected to come up on dhcp and give route to network
[13:18] <smoser> now...
[13:18] <smoser> that is being fixedui do want to fix that htough
[13:18] <smoser> so that ocnfig drive can correctly insert networking
[16:21] <harlowja_at_home> smoser, btw, i'm in NY for a couple week, so will be on/off (forgot if i told u :-P)
[16:24] <smoser> harlowja_at_home, sure. just make sure you vote for my talk. :)
[16:24] <harlowja_at_home> ??
[16:25] <harlowja_at_home> where's that
[16:25] <smoser> http://www.openstack.org/vote-paris/Presentation/ecure-containers-in-openstack-using-lxc-and-user-namespaces
[16:25] <smoser> and while you're there, you should vote for this one too
[16:25] <smoser> https://www.openstack.org/vote-paris/Presentation/astrologer
[16:26] <harlowja_at_home> cool
[16:26] <harlowja_at_home> will do, will get some others to vote for that also :-P
[16:26] <smoser> others by canonical at http://insights.ubuntu.com/2014/07/31/voting-begins-for-openstack-summit-sessions-in-paris/
[16:26] <smoser> look at that second link :)
[16:26] <smoser> if you have links to yours, i'll + them to
[16:26] <harlowja_at_home> "highly effective astrological love problem solutions are good enough to solve all your problems - See more at: https://www.openstack.org/vote-paris/Presentation/astrologer#sthash.Gu4vFXan.dpuf"?
[16:26] <harlowja_at_home> what the
[16:27] <harlowja_at_home> i didn't put any up this time :-P
[16:49] <harlowja_at_home> smoser, astrogger even put it under the networking category +1, ha
[16:49] <harlowja_at_home> different type of networking, ha
[18:35] <harmw> smoser: ready to accept my merge request? :P
[18:36] <smoser> let me look. i think we were closer.
[18:37] <smoser> so the patch to busybox
[18:37] <smoser> you patch in a patch. is that right ?
[18:37] <smoser> is thats what happening there?
[18:37] <smoser> where does leasetime come from, do you know ?
[18:37] <smoser> ie, is it of any use for us to get that passed in from ifup ?
[18:37] <smoser> i dont know where it would get it from
[18:40] <smoser> harmw, do you mind if i bikeshed on some things?
[18:40] <smoser> i dont want to put you off, and i thikn its probably good enough.
[18:40] <smoser> but a few things. 
[18:42] <smoser> here. i'll just make some changes here
[18:42] <smoser> and then propose for merge into your branch
[18:42] <smoser> then you sanity check
[18:46] <harmw> leasetime comes from the dhcpservice, we don't do anything with it
[18:46] <smoser> hm..
[18:46] <smoser> i'd have thoguht so
[18:46] <smoser> but why does ifup have '%leastime%' ?
[18:47] <smoser> see line 37 of your MP.
[18:47] <harmw> hm, it does?
[18:47] <smoser> see how it can call dhcpcd with '-l %leasetime'
[18:47] <smoser> it seems odd
[18:47] <smoser> but i didn't understand. so asking you
[18:47] <smoser> :)
[18:47] <harmw> hmk, well, not all clients are using the same options though
[18:47] <harmw> in ifupdown.c 
[18:49] <harmw> and yes, its a patch that creates a new (patch) file that will add the new dhcp client directive to that struct in ifupdown.c
[18:49] <harmw> whats so wrong with my stuff for you to b wanting to bikeshed? :p
[18:51] <smoser> give me 10 minutes. i'll push up a branch.
[18:51] <harmw> meh
[18:52] <smoser> just making stuff more localized and such.
[18:52] <smoser> i'll show
[18:52] <smoser> nothing big
[18:52] <smoser> you really did good.
[18:52] <smoser> thank you!
[18:52] <harmw> yea right, well obviously not good enough 
[18:52] <harmw> :p
[18:55] <smoser> harmw, what is -x
[18:56] <harmw> as in the udhcpc parameter ?
[18:56] <smoser> yeah
[18:56] <harmw> asking for options
[18:56] <harmw> no
[18:56] <harmw> 'include option OPT in set packets'
[18:56] <smoser> ok. so if hostname is empty
[18:56] <smoser> then we dont want the -x either
[18:56] <smoser> right ?
[18:57] <harmw> damn, well... isn't hostname defaulting to cirros?
[18:57] <smoser> probably. but just in case.
[18:57] <harmw> god I hate you for that :p
[18:57] <smoser> i told you bike shed
[18:57] <harmw> you're probably right
[18:57] <smoser> i've got it thoguh
[18:58] <harmw> probably something like: [ -z `hostname` ] && OPT=bla
[19:01] <harmw> you should merge the updated buildroot as well, someday
[19:01] <smoser> yes.
[19:01] <smoser> i will merge that for sure.
[19:02] <harmw> but lets finish this udhcpc branch first, then you're all set on the buildroot, and then its time to drink beers and enjoy the weekend :>
[19:15] <smoser> harmw, so every time something ifup dhcps
[19:15] <smoser> it will kill resolv.conf
[19:15] <smoser> ie, last one wins
[19:16] <harmw> but thats not any different from the current situation, right?
[19:16] <smoser> i dont know.
[19:16] <smoser> problby not
[19:16] <smoser> just found it interesting
[19:16] <smoser> and odd
[19:16] <smoser> i'm gonna make it only do that if
[19:16] <smoser> domain or dns is set.
[19:16] <harmw> that part was already in default.script, which is called at ifup
[19:16] <smoser> alright.
[19:16] <smoser> i'll lave it as it is
[19:16] <harmw> probably wouln't hurt, no
[19:16] <smoser> we could potentially make that work
[19:17] <smoser> make it configurable
[19:17] <smoser> we could
[19:18] <harmw> i'd opt for first bringing in the major changes, and then perhaps clean this little issue :)
[19:18] <harmw> *fix
[19:25] <harmw> grrr, why doesn't centos7 ship with cloud-init
[19:25] <harmw> I thought RH had added that to RHEL
[19:25] <harmw> and while the releasenotes of centos7 mention there are cloud images underway, they have yet to arrive
[19:29] <smoser> harmw, lp:~smoser/cirros/udhcpc-wrapper
[19:29] <smoser> i'll be back in a bit
[19:29] <harmw> ok, ill have a look at merging that with my branch
[19:43] <harmw> done, pushed
[19:45] <harmw> ok, I'm building a new image now
[19:46] <harmw> hm, I dont see any reason for it to fail on the current buildroot - but I'm using my 2014 buildroot to testdrive this thing... (since that builds on centos)
[19:46] <harmw> ill check back in an hour :)
[20:35] <harmw> and another hour :p
[20:35] <harmw> so, busybox 1.20.1 in buildroot 2014 :| damn
[20:35] <smoser> yeah. thats kindof annoying.
[20:36] <smoser> lets get to a new buildroot
[20:36] <harmw> haha cool
[20:36] <harmw> make it happen
[20:36] <harmw> :)
[20:36] <smoser> i dont have an easy answer for that patch having to have the busybox verison in it
[20:36] <smoser> (that is annoying)
[20:36] <harmw> I had the exact same objection to it
[20:36] <harmw> but went for it nonetheless
[20:37] <harmw> anyway, ill be back in 60 minutes
[20:37] <smoser> k
[20:37] <smoser> so lets shoot to merge to your 2014.02
[20:37] <smoser> and then merge to 2014.5
[20:37] <harmw> (and lets not forget udhcpc)
[20:38] <smoser> right.
[20:41] <smoser> holy moley. theres a bunch there.
[20:54] <smoser> harmw, ok. i hope id ont break anything. but heres my plan.
[20:54] <smoser>  a.) take the udhcp sutff without the patch disabled in the series file
[20:55] <smoser> so that it will still build fine, but will be inert
[20:55] <smoser> b.) get us merged to a newer version and address that later.
[21:03] <smoser> harmw, ok. pulled iwthout patch.
[21:25] <harmw> uhm, then you shouldn't have deleted default.script right?
[21:26] <harmw> since now we're not applying the patch to bb (to make it default to using cirros-dhcpc) it'll start udhcpc just like it always did
[21:27] <harmw> and that will be done with -s /usr/share/udhcpc/default.script
[21:27] <harmw> which doesn't exists
[21:27] <harmw> so please revert that file untill we will use the patch
[21:27] <harmw> thanks for merging though :)
[21:28] <harmw> be sure to update the chngelog btw