Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Mon Aug 22 19:36:11 UTC 2016

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Lee Trager <lee.trager at canonical.com>
wrote:

> 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?
>

Hi Lee,

I'd vote for hwe-16.04 because it is consistent with the release version
that is also being represented in the meta package name.  Additionally, it
would be easier for my brain to process hwe-16.04 and hwe-18.04 instead of
hwe-x and hwe-b (if we happen to roll back around the alphabet).

Also, I realize it would cause some additional work on the MAAS team's end,
but instead of using the shorter name in the UI/CLI, does it make more
sense to expose the actual meta package name for full consistency?  Is that
more confusing, less confusing?  I have no strong opinion either way, but
thought I'd at least ask in the spirit of bikeshedding.

> Also what other kernel flavours from Xenial should we make available on
> Trusty?
>

I'd suggest sticking with -generic and -lowlatency for now.  I'd assume
adding another later on should be relatively trivial if we wanted.

Thanks,
Leann

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/20160822/ad175fd4/attachment.html>