Removing 32-bit architectures from juju-core source package

[Nicholas Skaggs]

On 09/07/2016 04:57 PM, Nicholas Skaggs wrote:
> Hello all. I'd like to discuss the removal of 32-bit architectures 
> from the juju-core source package. The current packaging in the xenial 
> and yakkety archive for juju-core specifies it's architecture as 
> 'All'. This was an oversight as we officially support only the 
> following architectures:
>
> amd64 ppc64el arm64 s390x
>
> We don't test or support 32-bit builds of juju. This is in-line with 
> the clouds upon which juju runs which don't support 32-bit servers, as 
> well as our own support of xenial server and mitaka -- 64-bit only.
>
> With this in mind, I'd like to update the archive packaging in both 
> xenial and yakkety to remove these unsupported builds. I realize 
> removing previously published binaries from the xenial archive isn't 
> ideal, however we cannot update the current packages in order to deal 
> with changes in cloud providers.
>
> I am looking for feedback and help to accomplish this. I would propose 
> the following, but am open to other ideas to best accomplish this task.
>
> 1) Upload a new conjure-up package to xenial and yakkety that changes 
> the architecture to 'Any'
> 2) Upload a new juju-source package to xenial and yakkety that:
>         -- specifies the architecture as 'amd64 ppc64el arm64 s390x'
>         -- provides a second binary package for 32-bit users that 
> ensures they upgrade to a message informing them the package isn't 
> supported.
>
> I want to ensure a smooth experience for anyone who installed a 32-bit 
> version of juju on xenial. It is not found on any images, and juju 
> itself is not yet final. Production deployments should still be 
> utilizing juju-1. I would like to remove this package before wider 
> adoption as juju2 enters RC and final release stages. I would 
> especially appreciate ideas about ensuring a good upgrade story for 
> current users. I don't suspect there are many at all, but I don't want 
> to leave unsupported and abandoned packages in the archive.
>
> Nicholas
>
I'd like to update this mailing to reflect a series of discussions today 
on #ubuntu-devel surrounding this topic. It has been proposed that a 
solution be found to provide as much support for the existing 32-bit 
packages as possible. I've requested the juju-core team to provide 
compile-time support for disabling providers as a means to mitigate 
issues where upstream code stops support for 32-bit builds. For 32-bit 
users, they will retain support to the extent possible for providers on 
a best effort basis.

Most importantly, I trust this relieves my concerns about the inability 
to landed needed SRU's and regular updates in the development version of 
ubuntu due to a failing build in an unsupported architecture. I'd like 
to thank everyone involved for there feedback and discussions. For now, 
consider this request canceled.

Nicholas