On 9/5/20 5:51 am, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Julian, > > I agree with everything you write. The rationale for including the Ubuntu > release in the channel name for snaps installed via Ubuntu applies equally > whether that snap is preinstalled via an image, or pulled in via a > transitional deb; and whether the user is on an LTS release or not. > > So I don't think they should be considering separate channel names only for > the LTS releases, but should instead be doing this for all releases. > > Now, I think there may be a practical issue here; as I recall, trying to > install from a closed channel will automatically fall back to latest/stable, > but the maas team want to put users on 2.7/stable. That probably needs to > be a conversation with the Snap Store Team; but barring a solution for this, > I don't think it's appropriate to force the maas deb to put people on > latest/stable where that's not the MAAS Team's intent, and it's also not > particularly friendly to make the MAAS Team actively manage > 2.7/stable/ubuntu-$release channels across all supported releases and require > that they be kept in sync with 2.7/stable. > > If the MAAS Team /are/ willing to manage publication on their side so that > 2.7/stable/ubuntu-20.10, etc. are all kept in sync with 2.7/stable, then > that would be the best technical outcome for our users. But if this isn't > pratical, then until a store-side solution is available, it is better to > have the deb installing 2.7/stable instead of tracking > 2.7/stable/ubuntu-20.10 and having this fall through to latest/stable.
Hi Steve, Julian, The recollection above is, fortunately, inaccurate. A closed or expired branch always falls back to its parent channel; 2.7/stable/ubuntu-20.04 will fall back to 2.7/stable, not latest/stable. So the MAAS team should just need to ensure that all series branches are created on all tracks at least once, and that would be my preferred solution here. William. > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:59:59PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: >> I've been reviewing some of ack's changes for the maas deb2snap >> transitional package, and in the latest merge request >> >> - >> https://code.launchpad.net/~ack/ubuntu/+source/maas/+git/maas/+merge/383411 >> - >> >> a topic came up that I don't think we've discussed before. >> >> Currently, the maas deb installs maas 2.7/stable/ubuntu-$release >> (or other versions of maas instead of 2.7). They'd like to add a >> fallback that if the /ubuntu-$release channel is not there, it >> would install 2.7/stable instead, and then maybe only have the >> /ubuntu-$release channels for LTS releases. >> >> Now, I don't think this makes a lot of sense. I'd argue that >> the same policies as for seeded snaps should also apply to >> deb2snap transitions, as the rationale is the same - we can, >> if necessary, roll out fixes specific to an Ubuntu release. >> >> It also creates less confusion if people install the Ubuntu devel >> release while no such channel exists yet - people who install early >> in the 22.04 cycle would track 2.7/stable, people who install >> late would get 2.7/stable/ubuntu-22.04. >> >> >> So I don't think we currently have a progress for deb2snap transitions >> where the snap is not seeded. I think it should be the same as >> for seeded snaps: >> >> * deb2snap target snaps should always track /ubuntu-$release channels >> * deb2snap target snaps should be notified to create such channels >> on archive opening >> >> This ensures that people get a consistent experience for snaps >> they get pre-installed, and snaps they get upgraded from debs, >> or if they install a new deb that installs a snap. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
