Meta-package naming for Xenial LTS backports

[Brad Figg]

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,-signed,-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".

> >> >>>
> >> >>> 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

> -- 
> kernel-team mailing list
> kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team


-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com