Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

Tue Aug 23 16:22:59 UTC 2016

+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/20160823/33bbbcc8/attachment.html>