I suppose there is a workaround in bug #1328269 that we could run on the
machine before we execute. stub has already started incorporating that
into charms.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM, David Britton <email address hidden>
wrote:
> I'm not sure we reliably can. Amulet could be run from an LXC container
> that are still affected by bug #1328269 (which can be one-off fixed, but
> the next one we spin up will still have the issue).
>
I suppose there is a workaround in bug #1328269 that we could run on the
machine before we execute. stub has already started incorporating that
into charms.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM, David Britton <email address hidden>
wrote:
> I'm not sure we reliably can. Amulet could be run from an LXC container
> that are still affected by bug #1328269 (which can be one-off fixed, but
> the next one we spin up will still have the issue).
>
--
David Britton <email address hidden>