bootstrap file changed to reflect new kernel

[DavidjohnBlodgett]

@RackHD/corecommitters @tldavies @VulpesArtificem @rolandpoulter this is one of a 2 part PR (also in RackHD/on-imagebuilder#31) to support the new micro kernel.

[benbp]

@DavidjohnBlodgett also need some doc/build updates at https://github.com/RackHD/RackHD/blob/master/packer/ansible/roles/images/tasks/main.yml#L15-L19 and https://github.com/RackHD/docs/blob/25c037d64ecd54b7e4960efe7e976923c559dd2f/docs/rackhd/ubuntu_package_installation.rst (search for 3.16).

[benbp]

Please don't merge until ^^ are updated.

[anhou]

👍 after update with @benbp 's comments

[yyscamper]

How about to refactor the code using the task rendering? so it is more easy to change all micorkernel files to a new one by only change the options version:

options: {
        version: '3.19.0-56-generic',
        kernelFile: 'vmlinuz-{{options.version}}',
        initrdFile: 'initrd.img-{{options.version}}',
        kernelUri: '{{ api.server }}/common/{{ options.kernelFile }}',
        initrdUri: '{{ api.server }}/common/{{ options.initrdFile }}',
        basefs: 'common/base.trusty.{{options.version}}.squashfs.img',
        overlayfs: 'common/discovery.{{options.version}}.overlay.cpio.gz',
        profile: 'linux.ipxe',
        comport: 'ttyS0'
    },

[benbp]

Great idea! I second this, though maybe call it kernelVersion instead of version?

[jlongever]

Why just version? Why not the entire path/filename?

[benbp]

@jlongever because the version value is shared across 4 variables, if I understand your question correctly?

[benbp]

@DavidjohnBlodgett ^^

[jlongever]

@benbp as long as we're rendering option values why not pass each full filename and path in as an option? What if I want to boot my own custom overlay (or initrd, kernel, etc) called my.custom.overlay.version.1.cpio.gz put in my_overlays/ instead of /common; my graph would pass overlayfs and rendered as:
overlayfs: {{options.overlayfs}} = my_overlays/my.custom.overlay.version.1.cpio.gz.

Are we intentionally enforcing a file naming convention? Just throwing it out there.

[benbp]

I think the extra options are just for convenience on our end when changing the code, but for a use case like yours, yeah I would encourage just overwriting the whole overlayfs value from the graph.

[yyscamper]

Yes, my proposal just wants to simplify our future change on this task definition, you can still override all options with your customized values regardless of the version.
Furthermore, maybe the common/ can also be extracted as a option, such as baseUrl or baseDir .

[anhou]

Talking about refactoring, I suggest more. the URI/URL could be independent with kernel/initrd/basefs/overlayfs so that the static file server could be independent, it's very useful when a separate service for static file is used(also may benefit to RackHD in switch), it's also flexible for the customized case @jlongever mentioned. so just like this.
{
version: ***
baseUri: {{api.server}/common
kernelFile: ***
initrdFil: ***
basefs: ***
overlayfs: ***
prifile:***
comport: ***
}
and for ipxe profile https://github.com/RackHD/on-http/blob/master/data/profiles/linux.ipxe also need to be refactored, like below

kernel <%=baseUri%>/<%=kernelFile%>
initrd <%=baseUri%>/<%=initrdFile%>
imgargs imgargs <%=kernelFile%> initrd=<%=initrdFile%> ****** BASEFS=<%=baseUri%>/<%=basefs%> OVERLAYFS=<%=baseUri%>/<%=overlayfs%> ***

so the hardcoded 'http' could be removed from
https://github.com/RackHD/on-imagebuilder/blob/master/roles/initrd/provision_initrd/files/local#L109-L121

I know there will be more changes and this is out of the original purpose of this PR, so it could be refactored in another PR, so still 👍 from me for this PR with another refactoring PR

[yyscamper]

Still 👍 with a refactor suggestion.

[houndci-bot]

Missing semicolon.
Unrecoverable syntax error. (40% scanned).

[JenkinsRHD]

*** BUILD #517 ***

[JenkinsRHD]

*** BUILD #518 ***

[JenkinsRHD]

*** BUILD #519 ***