[lxc-users] LXD Official PPA deprecation

Wed Dec 27 17:41:24 UTC 2017

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deprecation withdrawn.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 <teward at 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 listlxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.orghttp://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/attachments/20171227/80fae803/attachment-0001.html>