Skip to content
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

Add Supported OS JSON files #9294

Merged
merged 38 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024
Merged

Add Supported OS JSON files #9294

merged 38 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024

Conversation

richlander
Copy link
Member

@richlander richlander commented May 1, 2024

This is an proposal of a new schema for OS Support information. It is based on a collaboration with @Falco20019 with ideas developed in #9210.

Once we agree, the intent is to merge this PR.

Goals:

The endoflife site is pretty cool:

@richlander richlander marked this pull request as draft May 1, 2024 23:02
@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

FYI: @martincostello

"arm64",
"arm"
],
"supported-cycles": [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just curious, why is this termed "cycles" rather than "versions"?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We tried to keep the terminology close to https://endoflife.date/docs/api

Copy link
Member

@jkotas jkotas Jun 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we believe that it is a good name? I find this name very odd. We do not have to stick with bad names. This is not 1:1 mapping with that APIs.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found release cycle fine, but have no hard feelings about using versions instead.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

supported-release-cycles would be fine. The adjective is important to communicate the meaning.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

supported-release-cycles would be fine.

But it is still not ideal. Release cycle is a repeatable process that produces releases. For example, take a look at how Ubuntu describes its current release cycle: https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle. This is not a list of the process variations. This is a list of what the process produced. So supported-releases or supported-versions would be even better.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cycles was an idea. I'm happy to switch to something more conventional.

release-notes/9.0/supported-os.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MichaelSimons
Copy link
Member

Looping in @joeloff as the Microsoft.Deployment.DotNet.Releases library is going to need to react.

@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

Having @joeloff react could be good. I assume there is no actual pressing reason since this information is purely additive not breaking.

@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

I removed most of the wildcards. Two outstanding issues:

  • I don't know what to include for Mac Catalyst.
  • I'm sure that the Windows versions are correct.

@Falco20019
Copy link
Contributor

I will give it a look later today and try to fill the holes if possible :)

Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We might want to split the supported-cycles up. Because there is the argument that Microsoft only gives technical support for OS that are maintained and not EOL and there is also the versions supported by the compile tool chain (SupportedOSPlatformVersion). These are different and both are of interest.

The minimum SupportedOSPlatformVersion is usually just one specific version (not an array) whereas the supported-cycles is usually an array where versions drop out once they are EOL in my opinion. supported-os.md mixes this up a bit. It talks about supported-cycles for Windows and Linux and about SupportedOSPlatformVersion for mobile platforms. SupportedOSPlatformVersion for Windows would be 10.0.17763.0.

"source": "Ubuntu 16.04"
},
{
"architecture": "arm32",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would stick with architectures as array instead of having a second alternative architecture as a single field. Makes automated processing easier.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

"arm64"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"15+"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mac Catalyst versions seem to correspond to iOS versions (and support lifetimes). The support linked to macOS seems more complex according to https://stackoverflow.com/a/69748714 but for this document, keeping it synced with iOS should be fine.

Copy link
Member

@akoeplinger akoeplinger May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can't really sync with iOS here since we support earlier iOS versions than what Mac Catalyst supports, using 15.0+ is correct here since it really depends on the lowest macOS version we support and which Mac Catalyst version that one ships with (i.e. 15.0 because we support macOS 12.0)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also think this is mostly because of min-sdk and supported-cycles being mixed up. The min-sdk will be separate of iOS, the supported-cycles most probably not.

"arm"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"API 21+"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Android is a bit special since there are 3 different versions (compileSdkVersion, minSdkVersion and targetSdkVersion). Also support varies if using .NET MAUI for .NET 8 (API 21+) or .NET MAUI Blazor (API 24+).

TargetFramework is specifying the compileSdkVersion. When using i.e. net8.0-android34.0 the compileSdkVersion will be set to API 34. When using net8.0-android, the SDK is deciding itself what to use (usually pretty much latest). AFAIK, MSBuild also set's the targetSdkVersion in the manifest to that.

SupportedOSPlatformVersion is setting minSdkVersion, which is mostly for getting build warnings if some calls are not available and need workarounds. It's also used by the Play Store to specify which devices are supported and it's tested on.

targetSdkVersion/compileSdkVersion is mostly only the latest version and defaults are found here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/frameworks#os-version-in-tfms

supported-cycles is really all about the minSdkVersion. Technically, this is API 21+ or 24+. In the supported-os I would more expect the real OS versions which would be 12, 12.1, 13, 14 and 15.

I would therefore propse here:

"supported-cycles": [
  "12",
  "12.1",
  "13",
  "14",
  "15"
],
"min-sdk-maui": "21",
"min-sdk-blazor": "24"

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While what you wrote is correct we have been using the API version instead of the Android OS version pretty much everywhere else, and it it's also what a user would set for SupportedOSPlatformVersion in the project file.

I'd prefer if we use API version for consistency.

Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My main issue is what I wrote here: #9294 (review)

The current supported-os.md is mixing up SupportedOSPlatformVersion and supported-cycles. SupportedOSPlatformVersion for Windows is not even mentioned anywhere.

For me as an end-user it's pretty hard to keep everything locally in sync because our end-customers are not interested in our SupportedOSPlatformVersion but about what OS we support them on. And I am interested on that as well from the perspective for what OS I get support from Microsoft if I stumble into issues. The documentation is currently only covering half of that and also not very consistent.

I would therefore like to see both things in the JSON. The real OS cycle supported (supported-cycles) but also the min supported technical SDK (SupportedOSPlatformVersion which for Android is already different between MAUI and Blazor). Maybe even calling it supported-min-sdk.

Copy link
Member

@akoeplinger akoeplinger May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes I agree with that. We've been struggling to clearly define/separate

  1. the minimum version an app will run on constrained by technical means i.e. min-sdk, min libc etc.
  2. the minimum version we "officially" support which excludes EOL versions

The second one changes throughout a release as platforms go EOL but the first one we typically don't touch.

Similar discussion in #9038

Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#8880 can give you a better picture about where this thing started off from. I will also need to know basically through-out the live of a .NET version what was supported in the past and might not be supported anymore. Right now, I maintain that stuff in a biiiiiiiiiiig table (#8880 (comment))

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion, the information about OS EOLs should be maintained separatedly and since the JSON files are generated according to @leecow should be taken into account when generating these to not manually maintain them in multiple locations. Otherwise the supported-cycles would need to be kept in sync for all .NET channels on each EOL.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The most important bit of data is supported OS, which aligns with "what we test and support". We should make sure that's captured. We've run into confusion in the past when we didn't have clarity on this.

What we target (with the compiler) is also important.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like #9294 (comment) is a compromise that gives everyone what they want. I'm not seeing an obvious downside to this approach. Yes/No?

"arm64"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"12.2"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would expect here the versions of 15+. 12.2 through 14.5 are already EOL. Maybe this is also something like a min-sdk version? I haven't used iOS builds myself so far. At least that seams to correspond to the SupportedOSPlatformVersion.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, we still support iOS 12.2 as the minimum target an app can run on. It is similar to min-sdk on Android.

"architectures": [
"x64",
"arm64",
"arm"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

x86 is also supported on Android

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"arm"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"API 21+"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While what you wrote is correct we have been using the API version instead of the Android OS version pretty much everywhere else, and it it's also what a user would set for SupportedOSPlatformVersion in the project file.

I'd prefer if we use API version for consistency.

"arm64"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"12.2"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, we still support iOS 12.2 as the minimum target an app can run on. It is similar to min-sdk on Android.

"arm64"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"15+"
Copy link
Member

@akoeplinger akoeplinger May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can't really sync with iOS here since we support earlier iOS versions than what Mac Catalyst supports, using 15.0+ is correct here since it really depends on the lowest macOS version we support and which Mac Catalyst version that one ships with (i.e. 15.0 because we support macOS 12.0)

"14",
"15",
"16",
"17"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a bit confused why we use X.Y+ for one platform and explicitly list versions for other platforms.

In the current supported-os.md document we only specify the minimum platform version that we support running on.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mainly because of the mixup of min-sdk and supported-cycles so far. supported-cycles will change during the lifetime of a .NET version due to EOL, min-sdk will usually not change anymore and is also only one version not a full list.

{
"id": "ios",
"name": "iOS",
"lifecycle-policy": "https://support.apple.com/ios/",
"architectures": [
"arm64"
Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 Jun 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are differences in supported architectures for iOS and the Simulator according to https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/b488f858df2803b353233f38b16786913d6bcbc7/release-notes/9.0/supported-os.md#ios--tvos--maccatalyst which will be lost by your change. We would need to reflect that somewhere.

"family": "Windows",
"distributions": [
{
"name": "Nano Server",
Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 Jun 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where do you intend to add the information about Nano Server and Windows Server Core? They have different support information, so I'm not sure if we can just refer to any of the remaining ones. Especially since Nano Server only supports x64.

Copy link
Contributor

@Falco20019 Falco20019 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some remarks on missing or wrong versions.

release-notes/8.0/supported-os.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
release-notes/9.0/supported-os.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -139,7 +145,7 @@
"Arm64",
"x64"
],
"supported-cycles": [
"supported-versions": [
"40",
"39"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

"40",
"39"
"supported-versions": [
"15.5"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are missing 12.5.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

15.2, 15.3 and 15.4 are still in LTSS, but I think it's fine to just skip them as .NET 9 on release never will have them supported.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

.NET 8+ cannot run on 12.5, due to requiring glibc 2.23.

From 12.5

$ ldd --version
ldd (GNU libc) 2.22

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's interesting, since according to https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/v8.0.0/release-notes/8.0/supported-os.md it was supported in the past (while the document was already mentioning glibc 2.23).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was a mistake in .NET 8, then. I probably didn't notice it initially since I'm less familiar with Suse ecosystem. This time, I actually checked since we're doing a much more thorough job.

release-notes/9.0/supported-os.json Show resolved Hide resolved
"link": "https://fedoraproject.org/",
"lifecycle": "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/End_of_life",
"architectures": [
"Arm32",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This list is about the architectures that .NET is available (supported?) on, right? IMO the list should be:

  • arm64
  • ppc64le
  • s390x
  • x64

.NET on Fedora is not available on Arm32 or x86.

release-notes/8.0/supported-os.json Show resolved Hide resolved
release-notes/8.0/supported-os.json Show resolved Hide resolved
]
},
{
"id": "opensuse",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oracle Linux was dropped. Was this intentional?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be 8 + 9 on both .NET 8 & 9. Oracle Linux 7 is still in support was never supported by any of those two .NET versions according to the file history.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Oracle Linux is just one of many RHEL-compatible distros. I added a note to accomodate this.

"x64"
],
"supported-versions": [
"15.5"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SLES still supports 12.5 as well.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

.NET 8+ cannot run on 12.5, due to requiring glibc 2.23.

From 12.5

$ ldd --version
ldd (GNU libc) 2.22

@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the feedback @Falco20019. That was very useful to get us towards more accurate info.

@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

Should we add a supported-os property at this location:

"release-type" : "sts",
?

If so, what should the path be? A fully-qualified GH path or to the same Azure Storage path? IMO, a GH raw path is likely good enough. The information isn't of the same secure nature as the other information and it changes outside of the patch tuesday publishing schedule.

Thoughts?

Also, I was going to skip doing this exercise for .NET 6. If someone else wants to do that, that's fine with me.

"lifecycle": "https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/",
"architectures": [
"Arm64",
"x64"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should add s390x and ppc64le here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume for 8 and 9?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes.

@Falco20019
Copy link
Contributor

Falco20019 commented Jun 25, 2024

Should we add a supported-os property at this location:

"release-type" : "sts",

I would vote for adding it. I even had it in my PR draft: https://github.com/dotnet/core/pull/9210/files#diff-8ea6e72f90234b0baa6218be158c9ebb2759894bcaf3ffe93c12bf330ffff0a8R12

Depending on how Azure Storage is updated, going with GH to have it always up2date might be the better approach.

Also, I was going to skip doing this exercise for .NET 6. If someone else wants to do that, that's fine with me.

I did it as #9366 (since I don't have permissions here). I would suggest to just merge it and discuss it here to avoid splitting discussion. I also added .NET 7 to be able to discuss how EOL products should be handled. As draft, I moved all releases into unsupported-versions.

Falco20019 and others added 2 commits June 25, 2024 09:42
* Minor fixes

* .NET 6 & 7 supported-os files

* Generate MD files
release-notes/releases-index.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Falco20019 and others added 3 commits June 26, 2024 07:24
* Re-add active versions to supported-versions on .NET 7

* Reformat EoL information

* Prettify Windows names

* Fix naming of prettify
@richlander richlander merged commit fe79b58 into main Jun 26, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
@richlander richlander deleted the os-support branch June 26, 2024 14:57
@richlander
Copy link
Member Author

#9370

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants