OEMMeta

Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2020-07-24 08:47:59
Size: 2060
Editor: ycheng-twn
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2020-07-30 07:34:02
Size: 2382
Editor: ycheng-twn
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 19: Line 19:
XXX to be filled in [ Background ]
Line 21: Line 21:
Background: Which situation this update match? Related information or reference.
Line 23: Line 23:
Which situation this update match?
 
Line 40: Line 38:
TBD  The real potential regression will live in the package set that will be installed via dependency of this package, which live in oem archive and control by OEM team. Given that, there are almost no regress potential.
 OEM team and other corresponding team need take responsibility of those dependency installed.

PROPOSAL

NOT APPROVED YET, BEING DRAFTED.

Introduction

These packages exist to hint parts of the installer / upgrade tooling that the running hardware is certified, and should have certain packages installed.

They follow the naming scheme oem-*-meta.

Possible situation that need update meta package and then SRU it.

  • kernel flavour change
  • add modaliases per customer request.
  • modification due to spec change. (the way installer need it, etc)

SRU Bug template

[ Background ]

Which situation this update match? Related information or reference.

[ Impact ]

  1. Upgrade path: Due to user will go real meta via previous bootstrap meta,
    • we don't need to worry about cases that user upgrade from old version.
  2. The background and impact of the situation for this change, and it's
    • impact.

[ Testing ]

  1. Test that ubuntu-drivers list-oem lists the meta-package on the relevant hardware

  2. Test that fully installing the meta-package (upgrading to the OEM archive if relevant) works properly on the hardware
  3. (when this is ready in Ubuntu) Do an offline install. Boot the system. Run update-manager. Check that an upgrade to the OEM package is offered and that it completes successfully and the hardware works properly.

[Regression Potential]

  • The real potential regression will live in the package set that will be installed via dependency of this package, which live in oem archive and control by OEM team. Given that, there are almost no regress potential. OEM team and other corresponding team need take responsibility of those dependency installed.

Procedure

There is an existing MIR exception, allowing these packages to be accepted directly into main. As long as the package complies with the template required for the MIR exception to apply, it can be similarly accepted into -proposed without further review. SRU team members can use the script oem-metapackage-mir-check from lp:ubuntu-archive-tools to satisfy themselves that this is the case.

Canonical's Commercial Engineering team are expected to perform the required testing as outlined in the template above. This must be done on the package *as it exists in the Ubuntu archive*, so after acceptance into -proposed. Providing this is done, the 10-day aging period does not apply.

StableReleaseUpdates/OEMMeta (last edited 2020-07-30 07:34:02 by ycheng-twn)