Hey Nate, That was quick! :-)
Have you read the previous threads on the subject? Agree with Mark we should do something, but would be good to keep in mind some of the points raised (e.g. scripts that use these provider-specific constraints shouldn't just explode when running elsewhere). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Nate Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > I just implemented that tonight, pending code review. :) > > On Oct 9, 2013 4:59 PM, "Mark Shuttleworth" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> We should really allow passing substrate-specific constraints like >> instance types. No need for the voodoo in juju :) >> >> On 09/10/13 20:16, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: >> >> Unfortunately without an ec2 constraint in juju-core around instance type, >> the overlap around capabilities within ec2 instance types means exact >> specification via generic constraint is inexact. looks like you already >> filed a bug on this https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1237568 >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Jorge O. Castro <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I can't seem to figure out the right combination of constraints to get >>> an m1.medium. >>> >>> juju bootstrap --constraints "cpu-cores=2 mem=3.75" >>> >>> launches c1.mediums and not m1's. >>> >>> -- >>> Jorge Castro >>> Canonical Ltd. >>> http://juju.ubuntu.com/charm-championship - Share your infrastructure, >>> win a prize! >>> >>> -- >>> Juju mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Juju mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >> > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
