Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Wed Aug 10 16:42:47 UTC 2016

Sounds good to me. We were working under that assumption already, but I
just wanted to clarify!

Thanks Brad!

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Brad Figg <brad.figg at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:54:26AM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Are we expecting to make all "edge" kernels available via MAAS, or should
> > MAAS just ignore the these for the time being ?
> >
>
> My $.02 ..
>
> The usage scenario I am thinking of is with a cloud customer that uses JuJu
> & MaaS for their deployments. They have a "development" cloud separate from
> their "production" cloud. They are running the rolling hwe kernel in
> production and want to start testing the next hwe kernel before they get it
> automatically. I think they need to be able to install that via JuJu & MaaS
> on their development cloud.
>
> Brad
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andres Rodriguez
> > Engineering Manager, MAAS
> > Canonical USA, Inc.
>
> --
> Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com
>

-- 
Andres Rodriguez
Engineering Manager, MAAS
Canonical USA, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20160810/4c84beee/attachment.html>