Skip to content

Add Lima local virtualization runbook#4

Open
aronchick wants to merge 1 commit into
riffcc:mainfrom
aronchick:add-lima-virtualization-runbook
Open

Add Lima local virtualization runbook#4
aronchick wants to merge 1 commit into
riffcc:mainfrom
aronchick:add-lima-virtualization-runbook

Conversation

@aronchick

@aronchick aronchick commented Jun 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • add a Lima-based local virtualization runbook for macOS labs
  • document installing Lima, creating five Ubuntu VMs, assigning stable SSH ports, and wiring Jetpack SSH overlay vars
  • document installing Jetpack on the Mac/controller side and adding a local jetp alias when the upstream build installs jetpack
  • clarify that this repo's Jetpack automation is distinct from NVIDIA Jetson JetPack
  • link the runbook from the README and ignore local .local/ runtime state

Verification

  • awk '/^```bash$/{inside=1; next} /^```$/{inside=0} inside{print}' docs/local-virtualization-lima.md | bash -n
  • git diff --check
  • limactl --version -> limactl version 2.1.3
  • limactl start --list-templates | grep '^ubuntu-lts$'
  • limactl create --help | rg -- '--ssh-port|--cpus|--memory|--disk|--arch'
  • verified Jetpack recognizes jet_ssh_hostname, jet_ssh_port, jet_ssh_user, and jet_ssh_private_key_file from upstream riffcc/jetpack
  • verified upstream Jetpack installation docs currently build from source with cargo install --path .

This PR is documentation-only; it does not create or modify any local VMs.

@aronchick aronchick force-pushed the add-lima-virtualization-runbook branch from 52a9400 to 8339315 Compare June 21, 2026 04:21
@Zorlin

Zorlin commented Jun 25, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This inspired adding a bunch of functionality directly into Jetpack that should make these PRs and playbooks much simpler.

I will submit a revision soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants