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
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
