Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Tue Aug 23 19:07:58 UTC 2016

The way it is now its hwe-<letter> for 12.04-15.10 and hwe-<version> for
16.04 and above.

So looking at http://paste.ubuntu.com/23080558/

Precise has hwe-p, hwe-q, hwe-r, hwe-s, hwe-t
Trusty has hwe-t, hwe-u, hwe-v, hwe-w, hwe-16.04, hwe-16.04-lowatency.
Xenial has hwe-16.04, hwe-16.04-lowlatency.
Yakkety has hwe-16.10, hwe-16.10-lowlatency

Pending release Trusty, Xenial, and Yakkety will also have hwe-16.04-edge,
hwe-16.04-lowlatency-edge, hwe-rolling, hwe-rolling-edge,
hwe-rolling-lowlatency, hwe-rolling-lowlatency-edge.

In the UI each kernel is displayed as <release (<kernel>) e.g "Xenial
(hwe-16.04-lowlatency)" or "Trusty (hwe-t)."

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dean Henrichsmeyer <dean at canonical.com>
wrote:

> 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/20160823/887f52dd/attachment.html>