Create tracks for canonical-livepatch

Hello,
the snap name is canonical-livepatch: snapcraft.io/canonical-livepatch/

Please create the following tracks:

  • core
  • core18
  • core20

These tracks will be used to support builds of the canonical-livepatch snap with different bases.

Thank you

Domas Monkus

Hello there,

Can you detail the rationale for requiring this for canonical-livepatch? you said this is about bases, whereas typically tracks with ubuntu release names are used when a different build of the snap is required for different kernel features, typically from the gadget snap. Is there a problem with canonical-livepatch just declaring a base (say core20) and installing that as required on systems?

  • Daniel

Hi,
the primary reason for doing this is user experience and speed. Since canonical-livepatch is usually installed via the ua tool, a lengthy install disrupts the user experience.

The canonical livepatch snap needs to support trusty, so it’s currently built with base core. When it’s installed on bionic or focal, usually the core snap needs to be installed first, increasing the download time significantly.

This especially affects Ubuntu Pro, where UA attachment is part of the init process.

Domas

Thanks for the explanation. +1 from me as reviewer.

We need to allow for up to 7 days for discussion and more votes, I’ll check back once 7 days have passed since your request was filed and create the track at that point.

  • Daniel

Are there any objections to this request?

Could any @reviewers chime in on this request?

  • Daniel

+1 from me, but I’d suggest a slightly different naming scheme to avoid confusion with the core* snaps. Made tracks named built-with-core*?

+1 to each of these requested tracks.

Thanks, I’ve created the tracks as requested by @domas. Let me know if you agree with Igor’s suggestion, in which case I can clear the tracks (before you publish anything to them!) and create ones with the new names. But it’s up to you as requester :slight_smile:

  • Daniel

I’m fine with @Igor’s suggestion - if that makes things clearer and easier to manage, we can use those track names.