Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Completely exclude a (single) box of being included #11

Open
vStone opened this issue May 2, 2013 · 5 comments
Open

Completely exclude a (single) box of being included #11

vStone opened this issue May 2, 2013 · 5 comments

Comments

@vStone
Copy link
Contributor

vStone commented May 2, 2013

By setting hostmanager.disabled inside a config.vm.define block.

@bjjsre
Copy link
Contributor

bjjsre commented Jun 13, 2013

Doesn't hostmanager.enabled = false work?

@bdcribbs
Copy link
Collaborator

I think hostmanager.enabled = false works fine if you are talking about multiple independent Vagrantfile's being brought up at the same time, but it does not work within a a vm.define block of a multi-box Vagrantfile.

Test Vagrantfile

@pbitty
Copy link
Contributor

pbitty commented Jan 1, 2014

Is there still any interest in this functionality?

@vStone
Copy link
Contributor Author

vStone commented Jan 2, 2014

There is from me

@pbitty
Copy link
Contributor

pbitty commented Jan 2, 2014

I don't think it would be too difficult to add this functionality while keeping the config simple and backward-compatible.

When I think of the semantics of 'including a box', I see two stages where a machine can be included:

  • when building the list of host file entries used in every hosts file (making the machine visible to other guests)
  • when managing the host file in the (guest) machine itself (making other guests visible to the machine)

For your use-case, do you want to exclude the machine from both stages, so it's completely out of the picture?

I think we could add a machine-level config option for this, like include_guest and have it default to true. Then you could exclude a machine by setting this to false in its own definition. This should keep things backward-compatible?

What do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants