New image organization and snap format

Oliver Grawert ogra at
Sat Jan 9 13:48:13 UTC 2016

Am Freitag, den 08.01.2016, 21:13 +0100 schrieb Michael Vogt:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:17:22PM -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> > Thanks Michael!
> Hi Gustavo,
> > As a minor and bikeshed-prone comment, feels like we could improve the
> > gadget/kernel names a bit. I know the convention put in place there is what
> > we agreed at the sprint, but looking at them with fresh eyes makes it feel
> > like we should tweak them.
> > 
> > Specifically, the names "canonical-pc" and "canonical-linux-pc" makes it
> > feel like we have a PC, and a Linux PC, which isn't the intended meaning we
> > want to convey.
> > 
> > I suggest inverting these names as "canonical-pc" and "canonical-pc-linux",
> > so we have a PC, and its Linux.
> > 
> > Similarly, we'd have "canonical-pi2" and "canonical-pi2-linux" (note the
> > single term rather than "raspi2" vs. "pi2").
> > 
> > How does that sound?
> I like that suggestion. Given that no one else objected I think there
> is general agreement. I will prepare new images based on the new
> names. This means one more reflash for the people who already
> installed the images. But if the names are stable now this will be the
> last exercise of having to reflash.
not naming them after their actual content (linux-generic, linux-raspi2)
means that you need to maintain mapping between the names if you want to
do automated builds (your build system needs to know that pi2-linux
needs to contain the linux-raspi2 device bits) .... 

this is just a heads up that this adds extra maintenance ... we usually
use an onion model for automatically built system-images so the outer
parts are named after the inner ones to avoid that you have to maintain
name-mapping between the different stages of a build.

this does indeed not matter if we only support a handfull of arches, but
wouldnt scale so well if we ever go into larger numbers.


More information about the snappy-devel mailing list