On 27 July 2011 15:12, James Westby james.westby@canonical.com wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:48:11 +0100, James Tunnicliffe james.tunnicliffe@linaro.org wrote:
All OS binaries structured as: http://releases.linaro.org/platform/%5Brelease%5D/%5Bdistribution name]/[milestone]/
Hardware packs all in one place: http://releases.linaro.org/platform/%5Brelease%5D/hwpacks/%5Bmilestone%5D/
What's the release/milestone distinction here?
Release is a YY.MM release and a milestone is alpha/beta/eac/release candidate/final. I realise that we are being far more agile than we were and we probably won't have anything before a release candidate.
I think that the only thing not considered here is multiple versions of a single rootfs or hwpack.
We are currently generating both natty-based and oneiric-based rootfs. I don't know if we plan to release both ever, or if oneiric-based is just snapshots for now, and we will switch one month to release the oneiric-based and not release the natty-based. If someone could clarify the intent here it will help us decide if the hierarchy needs to accommodate that too.
Agreed. Clarification required++
If we would like to have hardware packs closer to the distributions, we have a problem of the hwpack directory being rather large - copying it into each distribution would make it more difficult to find the right files. This problem does go away completely if we automate the downloading of files for the user, which we now do with linaro-fetch-image[-ui].
Yes.
We can do both and use symlinks though :-)
Well, quite. We already have a custom header on most of the pages so having some help text in there with links to the root of the OS binaries and hwpack directories may help as well.
I personally find it unnecessary to have separate directories for the linaro evaluation builds. The Ubuntu desktop and LEB builds seem to be identical (the md5sums files match at least!). Since we can link to specific places on the releases server in a release note, why not just link to the ubuntu-desktop directory? If we want to separate out Linaro Evaluation Builds we could have a structure like: http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/linaro-evaluation-builds/ubuntu-de... http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/community-supported/alip/release-c... http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/hwpacks/release-candidate/
My guess is that Alexander will want something like this to maintain that separation.
I can see why http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu/leb-panda/latest/ exists, but I believe it is obsolete with the release of linaro-fetch-image or linaro-fetch-image-ui, which automate the whole download and install process. Those tools don't support Android builds yet though. In another twist though the Android builds exist in a third directory structure! http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/11.07/panda/
Clearly this makes it easy for people with a panda board to get the files they need to run Android on it. The files seem to be unique, so it looks like it can be left alone, other than getting rid of the linaro-n.
It seems like these should fit in to your proposed structure above, with an image name of "android" or similar?
I was deliberately quiet on this point because I am unfamiliar with how all the files work together and if there is any duplication. Guidance welcome :-)
It should be simple enough to script copying the files from snapshots.linaro.org over to releases for the non-Android builds. I am happy to put together something like: create-linaro-release --source-snapshot YYMMDD:build --relese-type <alpha/beta/eac/rc/final> --relase-name <YY.MM>
While this is a good idea, I don't think it's organised enough to be done all at once right now. Builds are currently copied in chunks as they are ready.
While a script might be useful let's not make it a focus of this discussion. If the RMs want a script we can write it, but let's first
Sounds good to me. I didn't want to start a discussion about a problem without offering up a solution though!
Thanks,