cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Makrand <makrandsa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Eliminating Support for Ubuntu 12.04
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:47:54 GMT
Guys,

I am not sure on overall developer talk, but let me understand something
here.

Bit about setup:-
So, at my new work place, we already have 5 zones (each zone with its own
management server) with management node running on Ubuntu 12.04. ACS 4.4.2
and XENserver 6.2.  It was setup by someone who isn't working here anymore.
There are some internal issues (Technical and Non-technical) with whole
setup and hence we don't have any immediate plans of upgrading 12.04 to
forward one or even cloudstack for that matter.

So If I get it correctly and you guys drop support for 12.04, say in 4.10,
then I can only upgrade to 4.9.x any time in future. Is that it?

Or If I decide to to upgrade to 4.10, then I should get my Ubuntu to 14.04
or higher and then cloud stack?



--
Best,
Makrand


On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:08 AM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> Wido,
>
> My only issue is dropping for any distro between patch releases.  If
> someone is running 4.9.0.0 on Ubuntu 12.04, and they need to update to
> 4.9.1.0+ (e.g. to get a CVE fix), they will be stranded.  This failure
> seems to fail the Law of Least Surprise.  While I recognize that it is
> unlikely that we have people running 4.9 on 12.04, it is impossible to be
> certain.  Therefore, I vote to play it safe, and continue to support it in
> 4.9 release branch.
>
> For master (i.e. 4.10.0.0), Wido makes a strong case for dropping Ubuntu
> 12.04.  If any users are using Ubuntu 12.04 when 4.10.0 is released, they
> would have a supported release well past the April 2017 EOL since 4.9 is an
> LTS release.  Therefore, removing Ubuntu 12.04 support from 4.10.0.0 seems
> like a Good Thing (tm) in terms of simplifying the code and testing matrix.
>
> Can everyone accept that the 4.9 release branch will be the last to
> support Ubuntu 12.04?  If so, we can repoint the PR and merge it.
>
> In terms of Ubuntu 16.04 support, ideally we would support it in
> 4.9.1.0+.  However, if I understand Wido correctly, supporting Ubuntu 12.04
> and 16.04 in the same branch is very difficult or impossible.  Am I correct
> in my understanding?
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> >
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Op 23 augustus 2016 om 11:38 schreef Rohit Yadav <
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >> Historically, CloudStack's debian/deb packages/repositories have never
> been supported by the initial authors. For example, initial ACS version and
> all CCP releases never shipped deb packages, nor in our (old and recent)
> documentation we promote installation/running CloudStack on Debian/Ubuntu.
> Afaik, it was Wido who introduced it because he wanted to run CloudStack on
> Ubuntu/Debian-based distro. Also, the packages are something that the
> project never shipped or endorsed or supported, so it's up to the
> maintainers of various repositories how they are building and hosting
> CloudStack packages. Even if we remove the packaging support in our
> branch/repository, anyone can build CloudStack for any distro, several
> people/projects have packaging related buildsystem/code separated from the
> project codebase. Most tutorials that I found are based around Ubuntu 14.04
> or CentOS, given that 12.04 is 4+ years old, we might not even have anyone
> using CloudStack on it.
> >>
> >
> > I highly doubt somebody still runs Ubuntu 12.04 with a recent version of
> CloudStack.
> >
> > 4+ years in Qemu/libvirt time is a very long time.
> >
> >>
> >> That said -- I think 4.9 should at least not drop the support yet, just
> to let any Ubuntu 12.04 user who may be using it in the wild. If we look at
> the PR, the way we're dropping the support is by simply bumping up few
> package dependency versions. The issue of supporting or dropping support
> for Ubuntu 12.04 lies in those version changes only.
> >>
> >>
> >> The more important thing right now is to support at least Ubuntu 16.04
> hosts as KVM guests and usage-server hosts, which is much needed in both
> 4.9 and master branch for the upcoming 4.9.1.0 and 4.10.0.0 releases.
> >>
> >>
> >> Wido -- would it be acceptable to avoid bumping up the min. package
> dependency version, i.e we don't change the pkg dependencies for
> cloudstack-agent and keep the version number as it is for lsb-base,
> qemu-kvm, libvirt-bin for 4.9 branch. While on 4.10, we can discuss if we
> want to drop the support now or plan this later.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well, yes. But I don't know *what* might break on 12.04. I wrote the PR
> in May and there must have been a reason for that.
> >
> > Feel free to modify the PR and not bump those versions. Packages might
> work or not, not completely sure.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >> Regards.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
> >> Sent: 23 August 2016 11:38:43
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; John Burwell;
> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Eliminating Support for Ubuntu 12.04
> >>
> >>
> >>> Op 23 augustus 2016 om 1:02 schreef John Burwell <
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com>:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> PR 1647 [1] proposes dropping support for Ubuntu 12.04 from 4.9.2.0+.
> The primary motivation for its removal is that the age of its libvirt and
> qemu versions greatly complicate maintenance of the KVM integration.
> However, Ubuntu 12.04 will be supported until April 2017 [2]. What would be
> the impact to our user community of removing support for Ubuntu 12.04
> before its EOL in April 2017?  If we don’t drop support for it in 4.x,
> would it be acceptable to drop support for it in 5.0.0 which is currently
> scheduled for release at the end of 2016 [3]?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The PR was supposed to go into 4.9 already, it just took way to long to
> get merged. So that's why it would now go into 4.9.2
> >>
> >>> If we do chose to drop support for Ubuntu 12.04 in 4.x, I propose that
> we remove it in 4.10.0.0 rather than 4.9.2.0.  First, it is reasonable for
> users to expect that upgrading between patch releases (i.e. 4.9.x.x ->
> 4.9.x+1.x) would not require system changes.  Dropping a distribution would
> violate such an expectation. Second, 4.9 is an LTS branch.  Therefore,
> maintaining 12.04 support in 4.9 would provide LTS users with support for
> Ubuntu 12.04 until May 2018 — well after its EOL.  Does this approach seem
> reasonable if we elect drop Ubuntu 12.04 in 4.x?
> >>
> >> Again, this PR had to be merged earlier, not later. It's just very
> difficult packaging wise to keep supporting 12.04 and 16.04 at the same
> time.
> >>
> >> The Qemu and libvirt versions in 12.04 are truly ancient. I doubt
> anybody is running stock 12.04 with CloudStack 4.8 right now for example.
> >>
> >> The Ubuntu 12.04 debate has been popping up multiple times in the last
> year.
> >>
> >> This PR has been open way to long, that's imho the main problem here.
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of dropping 12.04, should have been done in 4.9 already
> and not wait any longer.
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -John
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1647
> >>> [2]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
> >>> [3]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/
> %5BPROPOSAL%5D+2016-2017+Release+Cycle+and+Calendar<htt
> ps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/
> [PROPOSAL]+2016-2017+Release+Cycle+and+Calendar>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> >>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
> >>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> >>> @shapeblue
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> >> www.shapeblue.com
> >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> >> @shapeblue
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message