New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Archiving of legacy ROS distros #80

Closed
ruffsl opened this Issue Sep 26, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@ruffsl
Member

ruffsl commented Sep 26, 2017

We've recently introduced docker images for all previous ROS releases, going way back to boxturtle, all of which have also reached end of life, including the upstream base images of ubuntu they build FROM, i.e. 10.04 and 12.04. These images should be beneficial for anyone who needs to research and run ROS code from previous published literature or archives to port legacy packages or reproduce results.

Currently these images are being housed under osrf/ros_eol automated repo on docker hub, but there is the question if this is the best place to archive them. Specifically, having separate repos for distros Before LTS (I'll just call this legacy for short), the first LTS being indigo, seem somewhat inconsistent.

This relates a little to issue #79, with the specific question here being if it would be possible to also archive these legacy images alongside the rest of releases on the library/ros repo. So that users want to access legacy images could just as simply refer to FROM ros/boxturtle. These dockerfile are not expected to change, so we could simple add them then remove the from the build manifest to push them into the official library archive, but I'm not sure if this is a direction the library maintainers would OK.

pringing: @mikaelarguedas @tfoote @j-rivero @tianon @yosifkit

@ruffsl ruffsl changed the title from Archiveing of Before LTS ROS distros to Archiving of legacy ROS distros Sep 27, 2017

@yosifkit

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yosifkit

yosifkit Sep 27, 2017

If it was a few month ago I would have said yes to back-filling old versions based on unsupported Ubuntu images. Unfortunately, the new multi-arch system would be unable to build the images since there is no architecture specific images for 10.04 and 12.04 (ie amd64/ubuntu:10.04).

yosifkit commented Sep 27, 2017

If it was a few month ago I would have said yes to back-filling old versions based on unsupported Ubuntu images. Unfortunately, the new multi-arch system would be unable to build the images since there is no architecture specific images for 10.04 and 12.04 (ie amd64/ubuntu:10.04).

@ruffsl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ruffsl

ruffsl Sep 27, 2017

Member

@yosifkit , couldn't we get around that by first pushing library/ubuntu:10.04 to amd64/ubuntu:10.04 before back-filling old ros images with the multi-arch manifest?

Member

ruffsl commented Sep 27, 2017

@yosifkit , couldn't we get around that by first pushing library/ubuntu:10.04 to amd64/ubuntu:10.04 before back-filling old ros images with the multi-arch manifest?

@tianon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tianon

tianon Sep 27, 2017

tianon commented Sep 27, 2017

@ruffsl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ruffsl

ruffsl Sep 27, 2017

Member

Ok, hmm... one last idea, then I'll concede to just hosting the legacy images under say osrf/<>

What if we just one-time PR'ed a manifest in the old format that included the legacy ROS tags, pushing them into the archive of the official registry, then reverted the manifest commit back? Are old manifest formats still dealt with the new multi-arch system?

Member

ruffsl commented Sep 27, 2017

Ok, hmm... one last idea, then I'll concede to just hosting the legacy images under say osrf/<>

What if we just one-time PR'ed a manifest in the old format that included the legacy ROS tags, pushing them into the archive of the official registry, then reverted the manifest commit back? Are old manifest formats still dealt with the new multi-arch system?

@yosifkit

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@yosifkit

yosifkit Sep 28, 2017

The old format is only supported on disk and treated the same once it is read by the bashbrew tool.

yosifkit commented Sep 28, 2017

The old format is only supported on disk and treated the same once it is read by the bashbrew tool.

@ruffsl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ruffsl

ruffsl Oct 4, 2017

Member

Well, given the legacy images are new and could still receive PRs from the community, perhaps it would be best to host them under osrf/<> so that they can updated with contributions. @tfoote ?

Member

ruffsl commented Oct 4, 2017

Well, given the legacy images are new and could still receive PRs from the community, perhaps it would be best to host them under osrf/<> so that they can updated with contributions. @tfoote ?

@tfoote

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tfoote

tfoote Oct 4, 2017

Contributor

+1 for osrf/ros_legacy

Contributor

tfoote commented Oct 4, 2017

+1 for osrf/ros_legacy

@ruffsl ruffsl closed this in fdebd0f Oct 4, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment