Hello I have two questions. * The exact date of end of ppa is not specified. What is the expected day? * Actualy my version of lxd is 2.16..I will update it on January 5th. If the support of the ppa is finished I would only have to delete the entries in "/etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-lxc-ubuntu-lxd-stable-xenial.list" then "apt update" and "apt install -t xenial-backports lxd lxd-client" Nothing else to do ?
2017-12-27 18:50 GMT+01:00 Thomas Ward <tew...@ubuntu.com>: > Glad to hear it cleared things up! > > Just to clarify my post, though, for others, the 'standard' system I was > referring to was my 16.04 Desktop installation. > > Just to get the 'bog standard default' policy sets, I spun up a pristine > 16.04 image in LXD, and pulled the `apt-cache policy` from it: > > root@test-xenial-image:~# apt-cache policy | grep backports > 100 http://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://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 > As is seen here, it too has backports enabled, and has the lower pin > priority. This should be *standard* therefore, though I don't have a pure > Ubuntu server here just now to reconfirm. However, default pins seem to > place it at lower priority, and therefore a purely optional 'must be > specified as installation source' option during installtion steps. (It's > how I moved off the PPAs and onto the Backports without issue for my LXD > 'hypervisor' servers, and my own laptop for LXD as well). > > > Thomas > > > On 12/27/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: > > 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 deprecation withdrawn.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 <tew...@ubuntu.com> 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=univ >> erse,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=univ >> erse,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=multiv >> erse,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=multiv >> erse,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=univer >> se,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=univer >> se,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=restri >> cted,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=restri >> cted,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 >> listlxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.orghttp://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > lxc-users mailing > listlxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.orghttp://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > lxc-users mailing list > lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users >
_______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users