Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Lee Trager lee.trager at
Wed Aug 10 00:24:51 UTC 2016

Thank for your responses. From my understanding the naming will be as the
following table however 'early' may change.

Kernel Package Name

SimpleStream Name



















To add support for the kernel names we have to make changes to both lp:maas
and lp:maas-images(used to generate the images and kernels at
The changes to lp:maas I can do and test with unit tests but I need the
actual packages to make the changes to lp:maas-images. The sooner the
packages are available the sooner we can do real world testing and get the
streams up.

Q: MAAS currently has the ability for an administrator to set a minimum
kernel version allowed to be used with a machine. If a user selects an
older release an hwe kernel will be automatically selected to meet the
minimum kernel version set by the administrator. Users are preventing from
deploying with an older kernel than what the administrator has set. I'm
wondering how this restriction should work with low latency kernels.
Currently I'm leaning towards forcing the user to stick with the kernel
flavor(generic or low latency) the administrator set as the minimum hwe
kernel. I was wondering if you or anyone else on the kernel team had any



On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Leann Ogasawara <
leann.ogasawara at> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Leann Ogasawara <
> leann.ogasawara at> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at>
>> wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2016 10:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:40:46AM -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>> >> On 07/27/2016 08:04 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> >>> We have been discussing some naming for new meta-packages to allow
>>> for
>>> >>> automatic rolling upgrades between Hardware Enablement (HWE) kernels
>>> >>> within the LTS series.  This thread aims to firm those up.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Currently we have meta-packages of the following forms:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     linux{,-image,-headers,-signed,-tools}-<flavour>[-<variant>]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The flavour then represents the primary use case for the kernel (for
>>> >>> example generic and lowlatency) and the optional variant currently is
>>> >>> used to identify the HWE kernels (lts-<series>).  For example:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     linux-image-generic-lts-xenial
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The desire is to offer a rolling HWE kernel, this means a kernel
>>> variant
>>> >>> which is updated automatically to the latest available HWE kernel
>>> within
>>> >>> the LTS.  We would expect that to update to the next HWE kernel at
>>> each
>>> >>> point release.  We wish to offer this in two forms, rolling until we
>>> >>> reach the next LTS release and continuing to roll after an upgrade.
>>> >>> Finally we wish to be able to offer early accesss to these updates as
>>> >>> soon as they are available for testing purposes.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We are proposing the following variants:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     -hwe-16.04
>>> >>>     -hwe-rolling
>>> >>>     -hwe-16.04-early
>>> >>>     -hwe-rolling-early
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So for example:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     linux-generic-hwe-16.04
>>> >>>
>>> >>> /me puts up some substantial scaffolding round his bikeshed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -apw
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I think the first 2 are fine. What is your intended use for "-early" ?
>>> >> I'm reluctant to endorse something like "-early" if it isn't a release
>>> >> requirement. Otherwise it'll get forgotten and grow stale.
>>> >
>>> > The intent of -early is it updated on the same cadance as the main
>>> ones,
>>> > but it switches from lts-Y to lts-Z on first availability rather than
>>> > waiting for the point release.  So they are the same much of the time,
>>> > then when a new lts-Z is available that one will switch to it, we
>>> > stablise it, and then the non -early one moves over to join it.
>>> >
>>> > -apw
>>> >
>>> In the interest of bike shedding, perhaps "-dev" would be more
>>> descriptive.
>> I like "-preview", anyone else want to pick a color?
> Introducing some additional questions I've received from the MAAS team:
> Q: With those kernel names I assume the Debian package names will be
> linux-hwe-16.04 and linux-hwe-rolling, correct?
> A: I think we would also encode the <flavor> in there, eg.
> linux-hwe-16.04-generic or linux-hwe-rolling-lowlatency.
> Tim, Andy, Brad, thoughts ^^?
> Q: I was also wondering what the low latency kernels will be named and
> whether they will have a rolling and early|dev|preview package as well?
> A:  If we are providing lowlatency as an HWE kernel (which we are),
> lowlatency should also be rolling and have a preview package as well.  As
> for the specific naming, lets get consensus on the above.
> Q: Right now we have packages in Xenial using the name
> linux-image-lowlatency-lts-<release>, I'm guessing that will change to
> something like linux-lowlatency-16.04.
> A:  Actually, I assumed we would still deliver the
> linux-image-<flavor>-lts-<release> as they are today.  The new rolling
> meta packages would then resolve to these.
> Tim, Andy, Brad, thoughts here too ^^?
> Q: Also do you have any idea of a time frame when the meta packages for
> all of this will be released?
> A: We've not selected a specific deadline to deliver these new meta
> packages.  I'd estimate end of Sept at the latest.  Is there an earlier
> date that you were hoping for?
> Thanks,
> Leann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the kernel-team mailing list