Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

[Lee Trager]

I'm working on the implementation right now and was wondering what we
should call the HWE Xenial kernels on Trusty? Should they be called hwe-x
or hwe-16.04? Also what other kernel flavours from Xenial should we make
available on Trusty?

Thanks,

Lee

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Andres Rodriguez <
andres.rodriguez at canonical.com> wrote:

> 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,-signe
>> d,-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/20160818/3596eb7b/attachment.html>