Glad to hear it cleared things up! Just to clarify my post, though, for others, the 'standard' system I was referring to was my 16.04 Desktop installation.
Just to get the 'bog standard default' policy sets, I spun up a pristine 16.04 image in LXD, and pulled the `apt-cache policy` from it: root@test-xenial-image:~# apt-cache policy | grep backports 100 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-backports/universe amd64 Packages release v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=universe,b=amd64 100 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-backports/main amd64 Packages release v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=main,b=amd64 As is seen here, it too has backports enabled, and has the lower pin priority. This should be *standard* therefore, though I don't have a pure Ubuntu server here just now to reconfirm. However, default pins seem to place it at lower priority, and therefore a purely optional 'must be specified as installation source' option during installtion steps. (It's how I moved off the PPAs and onto the Backports without issue for my LXD 'hypervisor' servers, and my own laptop for LXD as well). Thomas On 12/27/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: > Thank you, Thomas. Your explanation clears things up entirely, and I > learned several things about apt in the process. Concerns about PPA > deprecation withdrawn. > > Jeff > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Ward <tew...@ubuntu.com > <mailto:tew...@ubuntu.com>> wrote: > > Uhm... I think you're confused here Jeff. Allow me to explain. > > In Standard Ubuntu releases, Backports is *actually enabled* but > set at a lower pin priority by default. That is, you can have > backports enabled and then only *selectively* install from > Backports. This is a standard 16.04 system and its corresponding > Backports priority data from `apt-cache priority`: > > 100 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-backports/universe > i386 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=universe,b=i386 > 100 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-backports/universe > amd64 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=universe,b=amd64 > 100 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-backports/main i386 > Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=main,b=i386 > 100 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-backports/main amd64 > Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-backports,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=main,b=amd64 > > This indicates it's a lower priority than the updates or other > repositories, such as the standard xenial-updates, which is shown > here below: > > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/multiverse > i386 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=multiverse,b=i386 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/multiverse > amd64 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=multiverse,b=amd64 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/universe i386 > Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=universe,b=i386 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/universe > amd64 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=universe,b=amd64 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/restricted > i386 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=restricted,b=i386 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/restricted > amd64 Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=restricted,b=amd64 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/main i386 > Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=main,b=i386 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu > <http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu> xenial-updates/main amd64 > Packages > release > v=16.04,o=Ubuntu,a=xenial-updates,n=xenial,l=Ubuntu,c=main,b=amd64 > > > The priority of 100 is lower than the priority of 500; ultimately, > the version pinning *by default* sticks backports as an optional, > you-must-specify-to-install-from-backports option. Therefore, you > do ***not*** need extensive version pinning in Ubuntu releases to > use backports alongside standard system packages, as the system > by-default deprioritizes Backports unless you've installed > something specifically from Backports. (PPAs actually operate > completely differently, and get the 500 priority which can > actually result in clobbering of data between repos) > > Ultimately, this is ***not*** going to need extensive version > pinning. Trust me on this, as someone who's done this myself on > four separate environments and actively uses LXD to run multiple > production-level services actively via the four boxes - backports > being enabled don't impact things like you think it does. > > (I had this same misconception in the 14.04 era, but after talking > with the release team and other server team members, this is no > longer the case). > > > Thomas > Ubuntu Server Team Member > LP: ~teward > > > On 12/27/2017 11:57 AM, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: >> When updating LXD 2.20 on Ubuntu 16.04, I noticed the PPA >> deprecation notice, included below [1]. >> >> I'd like to respectfully ask that the PPA not be deprecated and >> continue to see new package versions. Or at the very least, see >> deprecation deferred until after the next LTS 18.04.1 is widely >> deployed. >> >> PPAs are well supported with our existing tooling (saltstack, >> etc) and allow granular access to only the desired package (LXD) >> and its dependencies. Snap packages are not an option for my >> company at this time. >> >> If I understand correctly, enabling the backports repository on >> LTS production systems to obtain new LXD versions may require >> extensive version pinning to keep existing installed packages at >> their current versions. >> >> Given that LXD is a major project of Canonical, continuing to >> provide an existing official PPA is helpful to users, consistent >> with other projects publishing debian packages, and worth the >> effort to continue maintenance going forward. >> >> Thanks for considering the request. >> Jeff >> >> >> [1] Deprecation notice: >> >> LXD PPAs to go away by end of year >> >> We are deprecating all LXD PPAs at the end of 2017. >> >> Existing users should move to the LXD snap as the preferred way >> to get the >> latest LXD feature release on older Ubuntu releases. >> >> You can do so by first installing snapd on your system if it's >> not there >> already. Once snapd is installed, installing the LXD snap and >> migrating your >> existing data can be done with: >> >> snap install lxd && lxd.migrate >> >> Alternatively, we do still provide a .deb version of LXD for >> older Ubuntu >> releases through the official -backports archive pocket. >> >> Those packages are identical to what's available through our PPAs >> but benefit >> from additional testing on our part. To switch over to those >> backport packages, >> use: >> >> apt install -t <release>-backports lxd lxd-client >> >> Replacing "<release>" with the codename of your Ubuntu release >> (e.g. xenial). >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lxc-users mailing list >> lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org >> <mailto:lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org> >> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users >> <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lxc-users mailing list > lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
_______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
