On 09/07/2016 04:57 PM, Nicholas Skaggs wrote:
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
I'd like to update this mailing to reflect a series of discussions today
on #ubuntu-devel surrounding this topic. It has been proposed that a
solution be found to provide as much support for the existing 32-bit
packages as possible. I've requested the juju-core team to provide
compile-time support for disabling providers as a means to mitigate
issues where upstream code stops support for 32-bit builds. For 32-bit
users, they will retain support to the extent possible for providers on
a best effort basis.
Most importantly, I trust this relieves my concerns about the inability
to landed needed SRU's and regular updates in the development version of
ubuntu due to a failing build in an unsupported architecture. I'd like
to thank everyone involved for there feedback and discussions. For now,
consider this request canceled.
Nicholas
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
