[OpenWrt-Devel] RFC: versions.json
mail at aparcar.org
Mon Mar 2 05:43:16 EST 2020
>>> A first step could be to establish a *versions.json* file at the root of
>>> downloads.openwrt.org! The file would allow to check if a device still runs
>>> the latest release. JSON seems common enough and is well supported by LuCIs
>> I'm wondering whether this JSON is really needed, wouldn't just some kind of
>> unified symlink/directory structure would work as well? I mean, why to care
>> about another JSON file content if the same could be achieved otherwise.
> It's true that the actual representation (symlink/directory structure, JSON file, a massive text file listing every release, etc) doesn't matter. In some way, they're all "convertible" to the other forms.
> But we are creating an API here. People want to write software against that API, knowing they never will have to tweak their software because a new version or important branch, etc arises.
> What matters is that OpenWrt pick ONE FORMAT to be the canonical representation of this information, and that our build system automatically create data IN THAT ONE FORMAT as a matter of course, so that everyone can rely on it for their needs.
It's might be a risky bet, but I could imagine JSON is around for the
next years to come. It's also easier extendable than other formats using
dicts. Something like `metadata_version: 1` could also be used to allow
>> Do we need to care about archive releases?
>> Older versions of the firmware (pre-20.xx) won't know how to interpret the API data, so we don't need to cater to those older images. However, in the future when Stable is 23.07.2, and you encounter a 20.07.1 machine, you'd like to it to show you the upgrade options based in its image.
I think average device memory growth faster than our release file so we
can risk storing these information, too. If we want to follow this
"minor release by minor release" upgrade approach we should keep all
versions, even archived ones.This way a device know "where" it is in the
long chain of newer firmware releases.
Ideally this would simply be a LuCI extension which could even be
backport to 18.x...
>> Do the choices below cover the waterfront for a complete set of useful names? (Let's assume that 19.07.2 has been released, and that there are two RCx builds: 19.07.3-rc1 and 20.07.0-rc2...)
> release/endoflife -> 17.01.0
> release/endoflife -> 15.05.
> release/endoflife -> 14.07
> release/endoflife -> 0.9 (all the way back to White Russian...)
I like the idea of having something like `latest-stable` pointing to the
latest branch plus latest point release. Besides this feature, symlinks
seem for me too limited to cover the use case I want to focus: The
running device is not able to check if something newer is available.
As Adrian mentioned earlier it could make sense to separate on the
branches. This way a device can suggest a "safe" upgrade within the
branch first and a "branch" upgrade only once EOL is near.
Using the "branch" as key is problematic as the branch order is unclear.
A dict doesn't have to be ordered (aka key order not stable).
I checked Alpine and awkwardly they came up with the same question a
version JSON file about a month ago. However they have a great
release overview which inspired me for a JSON draft:
So the update check performed on device would read "versions.json" and
select the currently running branch. It can then go through the "minor"
versions and select the latest or "one newer" - see below. If end of
life (eol) is reached (or close) it offer an upgrade to the newer branch.
>>> Update check script should look for the closest version found in the same
>>> channel. So a *stable* 19.12.3 device updates to 19.12.5
>> Wouldn't it be safer to upgrade first to 19.12.4? :-)
> This is an interesting and important question, but it's orthogonal to the question of an API that represents the variety of builds that are available.
I'd say it makes sense to always upgrade to the latest as we don't use
any migration scripts anyway (do we?) and say a release is broken and
quickly a followup is published, should all devices make this (possibly
bricking) extra loop?
>>> This could also introduce channels like "stable" (latest point release),
>>> "testing" (rcN) and "unstable" (snapshots). As a dict is used the *versions*
>>> array could be extended without losing compatibility.
>> Déjà vu? :-)
>> 1. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2019-August/018646.html
Yea I'll stop my subtle Debian/OpenWrt merging ambitions now.
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
More information about the openwrt-devel