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 Concerns about PPA deprecation withdrawn.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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected]http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > > >
_______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
