Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

[Tim Gardner]

On 08/10/2016 09:40 AM, Brad Figg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:37:34AM -0700, Brad Figg wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:44:32PM -0700, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Leann Ogasawara <
>>> leann.ogasawara at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com>
>>>> 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
>>
>> Personally, I don't like "early". I prefer "preview".
> 
> Maybe "edge" as that's used by snappy and juju stores. I also like
> the sound of "rolling-edge".
> 
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 ^^?
>>
>> I agree we need <flavour>. I think for the preview it would be:
>>   linux-hwe-rolling-preview-<flavour>
>>
>> We are previewing the next roll not the next flavour.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>> 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 ^^?
>>
>> That was my thinking as well.
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>> -- 

Yeah, what Brad said.

-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com