Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Tue Aug 23 18:20:04 UTC 2016

Sorry all, I'm late to this party. Is this settled? I'm +1 on hwe-16.04
(always numbers, never letters), sticking with -generic and -lowlatency,
and showing the proper label in the MAAS UI so that it's clear to users
what they're selecting.

I'd like to settle this so we can move on.

Thanks!

-Dean

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Andres Rodriguez <
andres.rodriguez at canonical.com> wrote:

> +dean at canonical.com
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Leann Ogasawara <
> leann.ogasawara at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andres Rodriguez
> Engineering Manager, MAAS
> Canonical USA, Inc.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20160823/ab13fbde/attachment.html>