core-build

zyga 2017-03-30 10:34:12 UTC #1

So we now have this new shiny repository where various packages related to the core snap will end up in. I was looking at it and I’d like to discuss possibility of some low-hanging-fruit gardening, specifically:

removal of debian/bzr-builddeb.conf
renaming the package from ubuntu-core-config to perhaps core-config or similar
renaming anything referring to ubuntu-core to core
renaming anything referring to snappy to snapd

I’m somewhat wary of doing that in absence of any CI though. Opinions?

EDIT: The code is here, for easier access: https://github.com/snapcore/core-build

ogra 2017-03-30 10:40:19 UTC #2

this will require changes in multiple places outside of this package and will also break the naming scheme for ubuntu images (each official ubuntu image has some ubuntu-$flavour-config) i am not sure this is a good idea, especially since this package contains all the bits that make it a usable “Ubuntu Core IoT” image.
this package is branding and configuration for producing bootable images along with the initramfs-tools-ubuntu-core package. as long as we use it to create the Ubuntu Core embedded/IoT product we should still keep the branding in the package name.

ogra 2017-03-30 10:43:32 UTC #3

totally with you on that one, along with this we eventually also need to drop all reference to system-image, i.e. /etc/system-image/writable-paths should just become /etc/writable-paths eventually (but this also requires non trivial changes on the initrd side)

ogra 2017-03-30 11:11:51 UTC #4

going through the files in the package, there is some obsolete stuff:

./lib/systemd/system/snappy-set-hostname.service
still needed but should be renamed

./etc/sudoers.d/10-ubuntu-core-secure-path
went into ubuntus sudo package and can be dropped

./lib/systemd/system/snapd.generate-network-conf.service
obsolete (pre netplan)

./etc/default/grub.d/50-system-image.cfg
@mvo is this one still needed and if so, should it move to the gadget snap instead ?

additionally there are two files in ./etc/cloud/cloud.cfg.d/ i will ask the cloud guys about.

zyga 2017-03-30 11:52:47 UTC #5

zyga 2017-03-30 11:54:39 UTC #6

zyga 2017-03-30 11:57:27 UTC #7

ogra 2017-03-30 12:00:01 UTC #8

perfect, sadly i dont seem to have permissions to approve… (i +1’ed all of them though)

zyga 2017-03-30 12:02:06 UTC #9

Yeah, I think I gave the repository some wrong permissions. Only @niemeyer can correct those now, I think.

ogra 2017-03-30 13:11:22 UTC #10

long term we should also move hook bits that do not need build time integration from live-build/hooks in https://github.com/snapcore/core into this package.

the hooks were often used because it is quicker to add modifications there but they should not be used for general configuration, branding etc. normally.

niemeyer 2017-03-31 16:31:44 UTC #11

Problem with “core-config” is that it means something else on the context which is closest to it. Every time people hear or talk about “core config” inside this community, they’ll be talking about something else.

zyga 2017-03-31 16:38:30 UTC #12

Yeah, core-config is a pretty unfortunate name. I think there’s a naming scheme where xxx-config is a configuration preset for package xxx. How about ignoring that (since nobody would need this package apart from our image build infrastructure) and just calling it appropriate, e.g. snapd-device-config.

EDIT: actually, why don’t we merge this into snapd? We already ship “device” units that only get used in a core/all-snap system. We’d just ship some more than now?

ogra 2017-03-31 17:59:15 UTC #13

well, it is the package used to ship the default configs for the Ubuntu Core product … as all other ubuntu products the package name is $flavour-config … like we do have -config packages for all other flavours we do have an ubuntu-core-config binary package for the Ubuntu Core product. I dont see a reason to change that in any way unless there are plans to drop the product name or change it to “Snapd Device”

zyga 2017-03-31 17:59:55 UTC #14

My only point is that this package is only consumed by us to build the core snap. I don’t think we support installing this package on another system and having it “work”.

ogra 2017-03-31 18:00:46 UTC #15

that doesnt change its purpose, it is a branding and configuration package for a certain product and follows the general defaults for other ubuntu products

zyga 2017-03-31 18:01:57 UTC #16

Fine, let’s call it foo-config but if we can reduce the number of source packages that is a good thing in my book.

ogra 2017-03-31 18:06:25 UTC #17

note that i really only talk about the binary name of the deb here … i obviously already surrendered (with the loss of being able to do any auto-builds now) to move the source tree to a subdir in a github tree with a random name.

ogra 2017-03-31 18:08:28 UTC #18

and on a side note … this package will have to be merged back into its archive equivalent eventually, we can not use the PPA forever and will eventually have to switch to SRUs for it … which means we can not just randomly rename it

niemeyer 2017-03-31 18:21:59 UTC #19

You said that before, and we precisely explained the reason why it should be changed above. Let’s please never talk about core-config anywhere near snapd without it meaning the configuration of the core snap.

ogra 2017-03-31 18:28:12 UTC #20

i’m talking about ubuntu-core-config only … with the emphasis on ubuntu-core which is a flavour used in the ubuntu archive, build system, launchpad, marketing, PR, etc … just like ubuntu-studio-config or xubuntu-config exist (or the respective -artwork packages) as binary deb packages … the package name follows a generic ubuntu standard used by all flavours like Ubuntu Core is one …

Also note: if you check the package content you will notice that it it is only useful when the core snap is actually used as a booted rootfs, not when it is used as execution environment for snap packages on classic systems.