James, This is a good topic to tackle. I have struggled myself to generalize a script I wrote that helps with the media creation. I think we should start doing retrospectives on the monthly releases and this topic can be one of the first ones to address. Mounir
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:48 AM, James Tunnicliffe < james.tunnicli...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Executive summary: James opens up a can of worms and volunteers to fix it. > > I am not suggesting that we change anything for this release. I don't > mind what the directory structure on releases.linaro.org is, as long > as it is consistent. But... > > As someone who cares more about structure on the file server than most > (because I try and maintain an index) I thought I should reply. It is > clear that we now have two structures living side by side on the > server. We used to have: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/[linaro release]/[distribution > name]/[milestone]/ > > And we now seem to be going with > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/[distribution name]/[release > name]/ > > The problem is these exist side by side, so looking in > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu-desktop/ I see > 11.05, 11.06, 11.07, alpha-3, beta-2, beta, final, latest. > alpha/beta/final are from the old 6 month release cycle and final > became 11.05. The other [year].[month] directories are a Linaro > release, with no tagging to say if they are a release candidate - a > bit confusing! > > A couple more observations: > > First we have duplication of hardware packs, but not the checksum > files and GPG signatures to go with them. The hardware packs are > hardware, not distribution specific, so it is difficult to justify to > have them in multiple locations. I imagine that this structure was > designed to put everything in one directory that someone may need to > get up and running with a Linaro distribution, but if they want to > check their hardware packs are signed and correctly downloaded they > still need to visit the hwpacks directory. > > Second we are still using > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n. I thought we had done > away with the lettered naming convention to go with the date based > ones. > > To index the releases server automatically I need a predictable file > structure. I don't mind what it is, as long as we stick to it. My > suggestion is: > > All OS binaries structured as: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/[release]/[distributionname]/[milestone]/ > > Hardware packs all in one place: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/[release]/hwpacks/[milestone]/ > > If we would like to have hardware packs closer to the distributions, > we have a problem of the hwpack directory being rather large - copying > it into each distribution would make it more difficult to find the > right files. This problem does go away completely if we automate the > downloading of files for the user, which we now do with > linaro-fetch-image[-ui]. > > I personally find it unnecessary to have separate directories for the > linaro evaluation builds. The Ubuntu desktop and LEB builds seem to be > identical (the md5sums files match at least!). Since we can link to > specific places on the releases server in a release note, why not just > link to the ubuntu-desktop directory? If we want to separate out > Linaro Evaluation Builds we could have a structure like: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/linaro-evaluation-builds/ubuntu-desktop/release-candidate/ > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/community-supported/alip/release-candidate/ > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/hwpacks/release-candidate/ > > I can see why > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu/leb-panda/latest/ > exists, but I believe it is obsolete with the release of > linaro-fetch-image or linaro-fetch-image-ui, which automate the whole > download and install process. Those tools don't support Android builds > yet though. In another twist though the Android builds exist in a > third directory structure! > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/11.07/panda/ > > Clearly this makes it easy for people with a panda board to get the > files they need to run Android on it. The files seem to be unique, so > it looks like it can be left alone, other than getting rid of the > linaro-n. > > It should be simple enough to script copying the files from > snapshots.linaro.org over to releases for the non-Android builds. I am > happy to put together something like: > create-linaro-release --source-snapshot YYMMDD:build --relese-type > <alpha/beta/eac/rc/final> --relase-name <YY.MM> > > For the Android builds there are two XML files that aren't in the > snapshots at the moment. If these are easily generated or supplied, we > could automate that release as well. > > James > > On 27 July 2011 03:57, Mounir Bsaibes <mounir.bsai...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > In preparation for the release of Linaro 11.07 images on 2011-07-28, > > a suitable candidate has been selected for testing. > > Please help our initiative by testing the official Linaro Evaluation > > Build (LEB): > > * Android: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/latest/leb-panda/ > > * Ubuntu: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu/leb-panda/latest/ > > Another exciting development worth sharing is the arrival of very early > > Linaro android builds for snowball. Our snowball builds are combining > AOSP > > based Linaro Platform code with a landing team kernel based on a recent > > linux-linaro and linux-linaro-android with an androidized linux-linaro > > kernel with > > landing team goodies on top. > > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/latest/leb-snowball/ > > On top of our officially supported Linaro Evaluation Builds images above, > > the Linaro Platform Team is proud to also provide a set of images > prepared > > by > > Linaro developers and community for specific target audience. Developers > and > > Community Builds images are provided on a best-effort basis and in the > hope > > that they can be useful. Last reported known to be working images can be > > found > > below: > > * Nano: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/nano/latest/ > > * ALIP: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/alip/latest/ > > * Developer: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/developer/latest/ > > * Ubuntu-desktop > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu-desktop/latest/ > > > > A list of all hardware packs hosted by Linaro Platform can be found > below: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/hwpacks/latest/ > > Please support the Developers and Community Builds images efforts by > testing > > and providing feedback for our builds. > > As a side note, hwpacks that have an -lt- in their name are outputs from > > the Linaro Landing teams, using some of their components. > > Similar to the spirit of the Ubuntu based Developers and Community > images, > > the Linaro Android Platform Team provides a set of vanilla AOSP builds > > that use Linaro toolchain and the Linaro mainline kernel for development > > boards that have good enough mainline support to run a full AOSP user > > experience. Those builds are not officially supported and are provided > > in the hope that they might be useful. > > * Android Vanilla AOSP for BeagleBoard-xM: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/latest/beaglexm/ > > * Android Vanilla AOSP for PandaBoard: > > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/latest/panda/ > > Make your way to the installation instructions: > > https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/ImageInstallation > > https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/DevPlatform/Ubuntu/ImageInstallation > > For an explanation of how to test and submit your results to the QA > > tracker at: > > http://qatracker.linaro.org > > For an explanation of how to use the qatracker please see: > > https://wiki.linaro.org/QA/QATracker > > > > Known Issues > > ============ > > Android: > > * ADB requires new userland setup w/ linux-linaro-android 3.0-2011.07 > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/807230 > > * No HDMI display working linux-linaro-android 3.0-2011.07 with > pandaboard > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/810049 > > * Two bugs reported against beagle XM rev C board suggest that there are > > issues severly impacting the stability and potentially usefulness of > Linaro > > Android builds for the rev C boards. > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/812098 > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/808773 > > Ubuntu: > > * Pulseaudio consumes 100% of the cpu when trying to play a sound with > > natty's linaro LEB and 3.0.0-1402-linaro-lt-omap > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/816638 > > * Only half of RAM useabe when using Devive Tree on Panda Board > > - See https://launchpad.net/bugs/707047 > > > > > > > > -- > > Mounir Bsaibes > > Project Manager > > > > Follow Linaro.org: > > facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 > > http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg > > http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linaro-dev mailing list > > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > > > > > > > > -- > James Tunnicliffe > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > -- Mounir Bsaibes Project Manager Follow Linaro.org: facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog>
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
