On 03/31/2015 01:28 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:

...

On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:

...

As a CentOs newbie, I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1 which derive from RHEL 7.1? or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.

Thanks! -Ryan

That was going to be my question as well. According to http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html the convention (for the 7.0 release at least) says:

"Numbering

CentOS 7.0-1406 introduces a new numbering scheme that we want to further develop into the life of CentOS-7. The 0 component maps to the upstream realease, whose code this release is built from. The 1406 component indicates the monthstamp of the code included in the release ( in this case, June 2014 ). By using a monthstamp we are able to respin and reissue updated media for things like container and cloud images, that are regularly refreshed, while still retaining a connection to the base distro version."

I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and the URL on at least one mirror has:

http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/

Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO files sorted out somehow, as this progression isn't intuitive:

CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso

Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:

They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.

And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and greater.

OOPS: Archived Versions, on this Page:

http://wiki.centos.org/Download

On 03/31/2015 04:24 PM, Alain Péan wrote:

Le 31/03/2015 20:30, Johnny Hughes a écrit :

...

...

I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and the URL

...

...

on at least one mirror has:

http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/

Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO files sorted out somehow, as this progression isn't intuitive:

CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso

Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release

Announcement:

...

They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.

It seems that also the redhat-release file has changed.Previously, it was : [root@centos7 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.0.1406 (Core)

Now it is : [root@centos-test ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 (Source)

It is also my opinion that the name CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso is rather confusing, it is not immediately evident that it is release 7.1. I would have prefered the name CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso, following the previous name convention.

Well, we are now using a new naming convention .. although, we have update /etc/cetnos-release/

This naming convention was voted on by the CentOS Board and discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list. It is what we are using moving forward. Please become familiar with it,as we do not expect to change it again.

On 03/31/2015 11:11 PM, Peter wrote:

Can you please point me to the centos-devel thread that discussed changing the iso naming convention from CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso to CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso? I must have missed it because I saw no mention of this change until today.

The first thread along these lines starts at http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html

It is a long thread, as you should know, since you participated in it.

The key post in the thread, in my opinion, is at http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010944.html

My takeaway is that the ISO name for 7.1406 was an aberration, and that this is the new paradigm going forward. But I'll also reserve the right to be wrong.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 08:23 +1300, Peter wrote:

My point is that there was a claim by the board that this particular change was discussed extensively on the -devel list. If it was then it should be quite easy to point out the post(s) in the archives where this particular discussion tool place.

If someone at Centos says put your hand in the fire, a wise person will ignore that command.

If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person will ignore that command.

A simple policy revision will make millions of Centos users smile. No apologies or excuses necessary - just the change will satisfy everyone.

Le 01/04/2015 22:15, Lamar Owen a écrit :

So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right? Sounds to me like you might want to use something different.

...

just the change will satisfy everyone.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone.

So, you refuse to hear your users, who have stated good arguments, for something that is not very difficult to change, the name of the iso, which is not coherent with the 7.0 name and confusing ? Yes, not very wise... Karanbir corrected very quickly the content of the redhat-release file, because it was totally different from 7.0, and broke a lot of scripts and applications.

Alain

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 17:10 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

I'm just experiencing a bit of disbelief that people are getting hung up over the file's name being the slightest bit unexpectedly different, that's all.

1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ?

2. How are users of all types, from all around the world, benefiting from this change ?

R.s.v.p.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

...

I am not so easily confused by the new numbering; what the ISO is named is orthogonal to what it contains, at least in my mind.

Adding the date component means CentOS may release more than one iso per RH's minor versions. There isn't much of a consistent relationship between the RH release and the subsequent Centos release other than 'sometime later when it is ready'. So, given a set of Centos isos or even just the most recent, how would you know which RH release it is based on? Download, install, and read the /etc/os-release file before finding out? Or look up some other source of the missing information?

On 04/02/2015 01:12 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:

So, given a set of Centos isos or even just the most recent, how would you know which RH release it is based on?

Oh, one more minor point, and I know I'm probably in the minority here: for most of the cases where I use CentOS, I don't actually care which RHEL release it is 'based on.' I just want 'latest CentOS [567]' for 95% of my uses. Well, 5 not as much now, but definitely 6 and 7. I actually don't even have a case in production right now that is strict release-number-bound, but I did have a couple at one point.

So I don't care which update the CentOS ISO most closely corresponds with; it's CentOS, and the software I need to have work works, since it either works with or will soon work with latest RHEL. (the Dell Poweredge stuff, for instance, where I'm 100% fully updated CentOS 6 at the moment). Updates of course get vetted in testing first, but I try to not rely on software that is update-point-release-strict-number-bound. And if I were to need that kind of strict release number binding, that particular machine would probably get Scientific Linux installed, since they do backports of certain things to earlier releases and let you stay at a particular update level while getting certain other updates. Although there are changes in RHEL 7.1 that are challenging things in that respect; see the threads on the SL lists related to SL7x and EPEL, for instance.

Of course, you can always trick out a release number bound setup by forcing a particular centos-release package to be the one that is installed, if it is a 'paper' requirement rather than a real requirement (which I have run into before).

But I know others have other requirements; YMMV and all that. I'm just stating what the reality is for my uses at the moment.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

Nor do I see it as an improvement.

Thank you for your considered response. If it is not an improvement, then there is no reason for the change, is there ?

In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs, if you will, much like SGI's numbering of their Foundation and ProPack products for the Altix server line) is what is illogical. Of course, the updates aren't quarterly any more, and other aspects of the versioning have morphed and changed over the years since the RHAS days (well, even back in certain branches of RHL 6.2, for that matter).

Whatever the original cause introducing sub-version numbering, that usage has become a clear progressive indicator of collections of updates within the major version.

in reality the update number is meaningless for compatibility checks, as it is more than possible to have a fully updated CentOS x system that claims to be x.0 but has all the packages, save centos-release, of the latest x.y; further, it is easily possible to install the CentOS x.6 centos-release package on a completely unpatched x.0 system, making the contents of andy of the /etc/*-release files not terribly useful for strict versioning.

I image the vast majority of Centos users will not risk doing non-standard updates on their production systems so your above concern is unlikely to occur.

...

Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.

I am not so easily confused by the new numbering;

I can not look at something labelled Centos 7.2169 and instantly know if it is Centos 7.1, 7.5 or even Centos 7.10. What's the latest version of Centos 6 ? Is it 6.32167 or 6.32782 or 6.32783 or should I be typing 6.23783 instead ? Confusion is not clarity.

...

How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as RHEL ?

The assertion is that CentOS is functionally equivalent to the upstream product.

If Centos is "functionally equivalent" to RHEL then common sense must dictate that the sub-version numbers should be compatible too.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:54 AM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:

you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the iso file name.

if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.

I'm not bothered so much by the actual name as by the justification of it having been discussed on the -devel list - where in fact pretty much all of the discussion was that the minor rev number was important and should stay in.

It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in /etc/os-release

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Always Learning centos@u64.u22.net wrote:

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:

...

you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the iso file name.

You may wear them, many of us don't :-)

...

if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.

Its about a consistent and logical approach to identifying versions, revisions and differences between changes.

How is the latest numbering system an improvement ? Marks idea of

{major version}-{sub version}-{mmdd} ......

is clearly a good proposal

-- Regards,

Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:

On 04/02/2015 10:59 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in /etc/os-release

In that particular place it is actually rather important, but that is orthogonal to the ISO name.

I agree, but this thread started off with a more general discussion of release/version numbering.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your centos-release rpm has not been updated and/or there is no system level state change that required metadata in that file.

If you know that some feature was added or bug fixed in RH 7.1, or more relevant, your boss or security officer or application developer knows that, there is very much value in being able to say that CentOS 7.1-whatever includes the same features/fixes, and that your automated inventory database will show which machines have been updated to that version. Otherwise you'll spend the rest of the day discussing how fix x is done in package-revs-n1 fix y is in package-rev-n2 and how to check for it. Sometimes you need the latter detail, but mostly not, especially for the application guys.

Note that any CentOS machine, updated to the same point in time, regardless of where and how it was privisioned should give you the same functional package set. This is an important thing.

Yes, but how do you explain that relationship to someone who only has a summary of the RH releases or where the Centos release stands compared to it. For example, what would you have said a few days ago?

On 04/02/2015 11:30 AM, Alain Péan wrote:

Le 02/04/2015 18:22, Les Mikesell a écrit :

...

...

Note that any CentOS machine, updated to the same point in time,

...

regardless of where and how it was privisioned should give you the same functional package set. This is an important thing.

Yes, but how do you explain that relationship to someone who only has a summary of the RH releases or where the Centos release stands compared to it. For example, what would you have said a few days ago?

Notice that a new minor release includes new drivers for new servers, so it is important to know if you can install at all the system on your server, before any updates !

what does that have to do with an ISO name? Updates are not done via ISO except for some very small number of off line servers. Updates usually happen from the tree. And the default setup point to /7/ for updates. We have been going that for 10 years (pointing updates to /4/, /5/, /6/, /7/, and not 6.1 or 6.2 or 6.3, etc.

Here is the default mirrorlist and baseurl info from CentOS-5:

=========================================== mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever&arch=$basearch&rep...

#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/ ===========================================

It is the same for CentOS-5, CentOS-6, and CentOS-7 ... if someone has something different, then they are making changes that they want to make. The name on the ISO has no impact on updates.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 04/02/2015 11:30 AM, Alain Péan wrote:

...

Notice that a new minor release includes new drivers for new servers, so it is important to know if you can install at all the system on your server, before any updates !

what does that have to do with an ISO name?

How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed driver was added in an RH minor rev?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:51 AM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:

On 4/2/2015 9:49 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:

...

How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed driver was added in an RH minor rev?

always use the latest one.

Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor release, really means nothing.

On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

...

...

...

How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed driver was added in an RH minor rev?

always use the latest one.

Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor release, really means nothing.

Well...

"Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest release announcement".

Like http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html

A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version you need, or it isn't yet.

If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it, to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway. You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details as to how that's implemented).

That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out here. CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue.

Les Mikesell wrote:

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

...

If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it, to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway. You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details as to how that's implemented).

That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out here. CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue.

But you are adding more confusion than you resolve if the designation does not indicate that a specified version is 'at least' up to the equivalent of some RH minor rev. Even for the people who might have incorrectly thought is was pinned there. And now there yet another arbitrary difference in what you need to know about one major number vs. another for the long interval they will co-exist.

Let me also add to Les' argument, in that there *are* point releases - when we go from x.y to x.z, there are usually on the order of 300 packages (I believe when I upgraded two servers yesterday from 7.0 to 7.1, there were 267 or so packages updated, and I think a few installed. That's *not* the same as yum update, and I get 10 or even 70 packages.

And when you have to talk to Windowsiacs, who know nothing other than version and point, it works best to tell them we're on that point, so go away, and don't bother us....

mark

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

...

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

...

...

...

How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed driver was added in an RH minor rev?

always use the latest one.

Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor release, really means nothing.

Well...

"Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest release announcement".

Like http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html

A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version you need, or it isn't yet.

If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it, to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway. You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details as to how that's implemented).

That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out here. CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue.

I'm sorry, but I think you all have chosen a very poor way to put out a message.

For me at least, this deviation from both the past conventions, and from the current naming conventions of the upstream vendor has real and annoying consequences.

Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release names would have been nice.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:

On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release names would have been nice.

We did.

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html

WE'RE NOT ON THE DEVEL LIST!

Yes, I'm shouting.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:

On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:

...

On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release

...

names would have been nice.

We did.

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html

WE'RE NOT ON THE DEVEL LIST!

WHY NOT?

...

Yes, I'm shouting.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

Seriously though, the change was brought up over a month ago on the -devel list. When we're asking for feedback about possible changes, it's on the -devel list, because it's about the development of the distro. If you want to give input for the direction of the distro, that's the place to do it. I would encourage anyone who's interested to join.

From the "Community" page:

"CentOS-devel

This list is a discussion list about the current and further development of CentOS. If you have questions regarding CentOS, please use the main centos list - this is strictly about development. "

Most of us are not involved in development of CentOS, and don't have the time to monitor such a mailing list for possible changes we might want to be aware of.

Major changes that effect day-to-day operations should be vetted through the main list, in my opinion.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 22:22 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:

Would it have made a difference? Yes, you asked on that list. And yes, nearly everyone who responded said no to the change, yet you did it anyway.

..............................

The damage is done now, you can't take it back.

But they can revert to the normal system appreciated by the overwhelming quantity of Centos users all around the world. Everyone makes mistakes and one one here wants grovelling apologies, just a change to the original and better system - even with dates,

Example Centos-7-1-1504 ...........

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Les Mikesell wrote:

I didn't see any indication there that you were planning to turn the /etc/redhat-release file into a symlink.

In CentOS, /etc/redhat-release has always been a symlink to /etc/centos-release.

Steve

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Les Mikesell wrote:

Well if you define 'always' as 'for CentOS6 and later...

Yes, you are right. I was relying on my obviously faulty and aged memory, so I checked on my two remaining CentOS 5 boxes. There is no /etc/centos-release file there at all, only an /etc/redhat-release, so obviously not a symlink at all. More coffee.

Steve

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 14:25 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:

On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

...

Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release names would have been nice.

We did.

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html

Strange - I thought this mailing list was named Centos Users !

On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:

Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?

Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most? It is unwelcome by you and a few others I've seen comment; what percentage of the list's subscribers do you suppose that might be? (It is neither welcome nor unwelcome by me, as I've said before.)

Feedback on the direction of the distribution's development is taken on the -devel list; this list is for questions about using the distribution.

On 4/2/2015 1:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:

Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast majority do not complain in public. Where is your contrary evidence that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority of Centos users ?

you're the one claiming its 'unwelcome by most', qed, the burden of proving that statement lies entirely on you.

I for one could care less what the ISO is called.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 17:37 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/02/2015 04:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:

...

Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast majority do not complain in public. Where is your contrary evidence that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority of Centos users ?

The burden of proof for your statement is on you, not me. I never said it was welcome by most, either. I might even agree with your statement, for that matter; but you made the statement; you have the burden of proof of that statement. I do not need to prove the converse.

Lamar,

You are a really great guy. Earlier you admitted the change was not beneficial and now you seem to agree the change was NOT welcome by most.

Query .... why did Centos bosses make the change ?

On 02/04/15 21:35, Phelps, Matthew wrote:

See my reply earlier. The description of the centos-devel list says "this is strictly about development."

Matt, come join the contributor base - be a commnuity communication liason ( or, I am sure we can find a title to quantify this ).

stretching this a bit futher : lets see if we can find 10 people who might be considered 'community beacons', who could / would act as commnuity comms and liason to make sure we are driving in the right directions and communicating things in the most impactful manner.

I am willing to lobby the board to then allow this group to spectate and feedback into Board Meetings ( we meet once a month ).

One data point I want to drop in here is that less than 0.1 % of the CentOS user base has any contact with the project ( wherein I imply, lists + forums + irc + bugs + wiki ), so we might need to spread the net wide to find a reasonable representation.

thoughts ?

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:23 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

I really think that if someone is actually interested in helping the project, rather than being a backseat driver and griping at every change ........

But first one ought to know exactly where the "project" is going. In which direction is Centos heading ?

Am I mistaken in thinking, after reading recent postings, Centos is slowly moving in a different direction to RHEL and the removal of useful and informative sub-version numbers is merely the first of many manifestations of the growing-gap, or eventual gulf, between "upstream" and Centos ?

Will Centos versions eventually become incompatible, partially or wholly, with its parent's RHEL versions ? I can understand why that would be commercially advantageous to RH.

On Thu, April 2, 2015 2:55 pm, Always Learning wrote:

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue.

Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?

If Centos is the same as RHEL then RH can loose valuable sales income because customers, actual and potential, use free Centos. However if Centos version numbers are vastly different from RHEL version numbers and there is no reliable method of equating Centos sub-versions with RHEL sub-versions, RH gains extra sales because of the uncertainty of Centos being 'just like' reliable RHEL.

Indeed. And some conspiracy theorist might add this happened after CentOS "marrying" RH (well, getting tighter relations that is) ;-)

Just a joke to put down everybody's fighting mood (or likely switching fire onto myself ;-(

Valeri

Just a casual thought.

-- Regards,

Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:55:46 +0100 Always Learning centos@u64.u22.net wrote:

Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?

I must be part of one the "by most". Since I'm one of the mostly silent majority.

I want to express my thanks to the team that does all of the work.

Thank you guys!

As far as the version numbering, just let me know what you are calling it (already done) and I'll deal with it. If I am unhappy, then there is RedHat but there's also SuSE, Ubuntu/Debian, Slack, Gentoo...

sknahT

vyS

If Centos is the same as RHEL then RH can loose valuable sales income because customers, actual and potential, use free Centos. However if Centos version numbers are vastly different from RHEL version numbers and there is no reliable method of equating Centos sub-versions with RHEL sub-versions, RH gains extra sales because of the uncertainty of Centos being 'just like' reliable RHEL.

Just a casual thought.

-- Regards,

Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:

os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your

Compatibility with RedHat, that says 7.1 ?

On 04/02/2015 05:08 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

Us, human, usually do consecutive counting as follows:

A:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...

Now, as portion of version identifier doesn't follow this way of counting anymore, it is akin counting like:

B:

231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ...

I believe your argument works fine since: CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1507.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1512.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1606.iso

note, this is YYmm to indicate age, and not serial numbers.

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 17:14 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:

I believe your argument works fine since: CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1507.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1512.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1606.iso

note, this is YYmm to indicate age, and not serial numbers.

Being a so-called 'westerner' where people read from Left to Right, it is illogical to read to the end of a string only to determine the version number.

Arabs and Jews too (I think) read from right to left, but I am sure they will also appreciate the simply logic of having

Centos 7-nnnnn-x86_64-DVD.iso

or even better

Centos 7-2-nnnnn-x86_64-DVD.iso

Why change anything unless the new idea is better than the previous ?

On 2 Apr 2015, at 06:41, Always Learning centos@u64.u22.net wrote:

...

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs, if you will, much like SGI's numbering of their Foundation and ProPack products for the Altix server line) is what is illogical. Of course, the updates aren't quarterly any more, and other aspects of the versioning have morphed and changed over the years since the RHAS days (well, even back in certain branches of RHL 6.2, for that matter).

Whatever the original cause introducing sub-version numbering, that usage has become a clear progressive indicator of collections of updates within the major version.

The new version numbering is too.

...

...

Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.

I am not so easily confused by the new numbering;

I can not look at something labelled Centos 7.2169 and instantly know if it is Centos 7.1, 7.5 or even Centos 7.10. What's the latest version of Centos 6 ? Is it 6.32167 or 6.32782 or 6.32783 or should I be typing 6.23783 instead ? Confusion is not clarity.

Because CentOS 7.1 7.2 etc do not exist. 7.1503 etc does. These are also dates so 6.23783 would never exist. Though assuming a valid date, the bigger number would be the latest (year first then month so it is sortable.)

I don't recall the thread or even where but I do remember a discussion that 7.1.1503 is not really semantic I think and potentially in itself confusing as you end up incrementing two numbers. The sub version becomes irrelevant as all the detail (point in time) lies with the date. The sub version becomes purely a remnant from RHEL with no specific purpose except to be a reminder.

...

...

How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as RHEL ?

...

The assertion is that CentOS is functionally equivalent to the upstream product.

If Centos is "functionally equivalent" to RHEL then common sense must dictate that the sub-version numbers should be compatible too.

I disagree. It's purely irrelevant in most cases.

Though one thing I do agree on is how to tell (roughly) which sources the CentOS release is based on. In which case the sub version number would be useful for academic reasons. For instance the release notes don't even mention RHEL 7.1 at all when I looked. Though you can usually match up the dates with the RHEL timeline so you can see when you're about to receive hundreds of updates.

So I can appreciate the concern somewhat on that regards. Maybe somewhere else needs to state it such as release notes and announcements (if those don't already.)

Jason

On 04/02/15 00:51, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote:

...

1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ?

I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it was that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a change of an ISO's file name 'unwise' and even comparing it to a Microsoft move. I just don't see it as being that big of a problem. Nor do I see it as an improvement. But the question was asked about where such a change might have been discussed, and I pointed to the long and drawn out centos-devel thread in which the background for the date-based numbering was beaten to death (and beyond). The CentOS devs have stated that the CentOS Board voted on it, and they have the decision-making power to do so. And they are all reasonable people.

But only those on the devel list ever saw the discussion. Those of us whose job it is to be sysadmins, and run many systems, don't tend to be on that list also.

Had you, for example, made it release.subrelease.date (7.1.1503), it would have been less disruptive and annoying.

mark

...

2. How are users of all types, from all around the world, benefiting

from this change ?

This change makes it unequivocally clear that CentOS 7.1503 is not exactly the same as upstream RHEL 7.1, although it is functionally equivalent (where the meaning of functionally equivalent has been hashed to death, too, but it basically means binary-compatible but not necessarily binary-identical). Whether you consider that a benefit or not is up to you. I'm personally neutral on the issue.

Consolidating two replies: On 04/01/2015 07:58 PM, Always Learning wrote:

...

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

...

On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote: (1) removing sub-version numbers is wrong; and ...

That is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs, if you will, much like SGI's numbering of their Foundation and ProPack products for the Altix server line) is what is illogical. Of course, the updates aren't quarterly any more, and other aspects of the versioning have morphed and changed over the years since the RHAS days (well, even back in certain branches of RHL 6.2, for that matter).

So you could read '7.1' as 'version 7 service pack 1.' My opinion is that sub-version numbers give a mistaken impression that the update number is a real 'version' when it was not originally so. Further, in reality the update number is meaningless for compatibility checks, as it is more than possible to have a fully updated CentOS x system that claims to be x.0 but has all the packages, save centos-release, of the latest x.y; further, it is easily possible to install the CentOS x.6 centos-release package on a completely unpatched x.0 system, making the contents of andy of the /etc/*-release files not terribly useful for strict versioning.

It is my opinion, although it's not a vehement opinion, that beginning the x.y practice is what was illogical. But it was done, and it is over, and I have more important things to do than gripe over semantics such as that.

...

Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.

I am not so easily confused by the new numbering; what the ISO is named is orthogonal to what it contains, at least in my mind.

...

How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as RHEL ?

The assertion is that CentOS is functionally equivalent to the upstream product. It is not 'the same as' nor can it be and still remove the trademarked branding of the upstream release. It is binary compatible without being binary identical. And as the meaning of 'binary compatible' has also been hashed to death, I'll not further clutter the traffic on this list about what it means. It's easy enough to read the centos-devel archives to see for yourself.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 04/01/2015 10:10 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:

...

Yes, not very wise... Karanbir corrected very quickly the content of the redhat-release file, because it was totally different from 7.0, and broke a lot of scripts and applications.

The issue of the content of redhat-release was a serious and valid one that actually broke stuff; the ISO name being different from expected doesn't break stuff. If the ISO name broke stuff, then that would be different, and it would have already been fixed.

This is the key bit here - were not trying to break anything - we are trying to keep things sane for folks who are already invested in the platform while also allowing other people to do interesting things.

You brought up the rolling builds, and yes - we've been doing it. Its been immense value ( over 100K downloads for the 2015 Feb builds as a point of reference ). for other process's like the Atomic builds, needing the nightly, weekly builds has been key to their ability to get the technology moving. There are a lot of such examples around, but I will admit many of them are silo'd away slightly from this list - eg. the docker traction we have does not typically feedback here to this list and perhaps not into this audience. But should you want to move into container space, CentOS today represents one of the best all around experiences either on host or instance side.

The story is similar on the Cloud side of things, we have a ver large cloud instance base - if i were to fancy a guess, I'd say 20% of the centos install base is today in cloud ( and this is largely only offprem, including onprem the numbers might go higher, but there is no way to tell since they could just be real machine instances ).

Putting all that aside, the baseline assumption that we should all be mindful of is that in real terms there is no CentOS point release : any centos install, regardless of where it originated from, yum updated to the same point in time will have the same package manifest, and should deliver the same feature set ( with some exceptions, like environ specific workloads might have local flavour - you wouldnt expect cups on an GCE instance for example ).

So what the changesets have done ( and lets be fair, these changes like the iso name changing to line up a date stream rather an an arbitary point in time isnt a huge deal, you can just rename the file locally if you so wish ), effectively line up and help deliver on that.

Let me highlight this with two examples: - the Amazon instances we provide have been updated out of band, to cover for the security issues that have wider impact, heartbleed and poodle and all that stuff : labelling those as 7.0 makes no sense since it does not deliver on a 7.0 feature set, it delivers a CentOS-7/Dec 2014 update set.

- Second example is that when you look at a machine and it says 5.5 its hard to explain to the user that his machine might be 5 years out of date, there is a baseline cultural expectation that a release is either maintained or not - and having the conversations around CentOS-5 being maintained but not 5.5 isnt easy. Remember that this list represents the folks who really know, and know well, both the ecosystem and platform as well as their workloads and userbase - there are a lot ( a majority ? ) of CentOS user who dont get this. For them to line up with a CentOS-7/2014-06 and CentOS-7/2015-03 immediately makes sense. it makes it easier for us to communicate the delta in security and bugfix that they dont have on there.

And I think the overall solution we have in place right now, really does this well in that we clearly communicate the upstream relationship, while still being able to deliver the common message on and around the centos-release spec. If there are tangiable situations where this change causes harm, then I am very willing to reach out and help find a solution : dont want to break existing installs nor reduce the info available.

The other thing here in this conversation is also that there is a large emotional resistance to change. Folks expect the numbers to line up in a specific manner, and they dont - the contents of the images however still give you the metadata you need ( both ways, they should give you point in time, and release from rhel that we derived/built from ).

Happy to pickup and work through individual concerns people might have around this. But in real terms, please note that there is no change in the content being delivered. We are only opening up options to line up various media and point-in-time images.

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:

...

If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person will ignore that command.

So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right? Sounds to me like you might want to use something different.

No I am not as can be conspicuously seen in what I wrote. Lamar your introduction of non-relevant matters can not detract from the essential point I made:-

(1) removing sub-version numbers is wrong; and

(2) changing the ISO naming structure from {major version}-{sub-version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso is an illogical unwise change because anyone looking at

{major version}-{sub-version}

instantly knows, for example, that is Centos 7.1 whereas

CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso

is baffling and one is then required to build and maintain a translation table to convert '1503' into Centos 7.1. That is frankly bonkers.

Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.

How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as RHEL ? More puzzling is the complete absence of logic for this detrimental removal of the sub-version number.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone.

I do not remember reading on this list any criticisms of the former, now abandoned, practise of using:-

{major version}-{sub-version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 21:51 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

Changing of naming structure from self explanatory to obscure is not clever either.

That single sentence is the essence of the concern I share with others.

2. Processor chip manufacturers with their chip notations (AMD was the

first one who got me annoyed, even though I like them more than Intel)

I have always preferred AMD to Intel :-)

Everyone makes mistakes, me too. Simply reverting the naming structure can be done without embarrassment. After all, we are all part of the same Centos family.

Le 31/03/2015 23:24, Alain Péan a écrit :

It seems that also the redhat-release file has changed.Previously, it was : [root@centos7 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.0.1406 (Core)

Now it is : [root@centos-test ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 (Source)

It is also my opinion that the name CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso is rather confusing, it is not immediately evident that it is release 7.1. I would have prefered the name CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso, following the previous name convention.

After Karanbir answer, the redhat-release file has indeed changed after a new 'yum update'. It it now : [root@centos-test ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)

Thanks. It could indeed impact such tools as Dell OMSA ant a lot others I think.

Alain

On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:

On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:

...

CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso

...

Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:

They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.

And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and greater.

Isn't that illogical ?

If there is:-

CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso

then the next one should logically be named:-

CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso

assuming sub-version numbers have been abolished by Centos.

Jumbled confusion, like CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso, is messy and illogical.

What is preventing Centos adopting a simple, neat, tidy, sensible and logical approach ? For example:

{major version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso ?

That is method I would use.

Thank you.

This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.

On 04/01/2015 10:07 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:

Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the CentOS Board.

Yes, it was discussed at great length on centos-devel. The core developers proposed a date-based versioning system which met with much opposition. I certainly wasn't convinced by their arguments.

...

It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.

You can call it what you like. I'll still call it CentOS 7.1.

as you should - the important thing is that we all know ( where 'we' is the community at large, the consumers and the SIGs ) all have a frame of reference that maps to the same target; different people have different goal posts - and if your's involves a 7.1, please use it.

On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:

...

This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.

Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor version reference?

does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Александр Кириллов nevis2us@infoline.su wrote:

Karanbir Singh писал 2015-04-01 14:25:

...

On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:

...

This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the

...

CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.

Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor version reference?

does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?

There's nothing of the sort in 7.0.1406. Ideally I'd like to see 7.1 in each and every rpm or iso name related to the point release. I'm not going to flame over something done and buried but sometimes the decisions made by rational people are just stunningly surprising.

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

It's not surprising, it's stunningly annoying.

Those of us who manage large installations of CentOS aren't involved in the development list or the board (we don't have time).

I urge the CentOS board to reconsider such a large departure from upstream. And I urge them to reach out far beyond the devel-list for opinions as that is a distinct, and quite separate, base of thought.

And, it's not just a matter of "calling it 7.1, or whatever you like." We have many scripts and operations based on determining the "version number" and if it is inconsistent with RHEL, and logic for that matter, it is more work for those who don't need it.

Yes, I'm whining. I get that. But I think I'm not alone.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:

...

...

This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.

Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor version reference?

does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?

Are you supposed to download an iso image, install it, then read that file before you know which upstream base minor number you got? In the whole long thread where this naming was supposedly 'discussed', I can't find a single user agreeing that dropping the minor number reference out of the name was a sane thing to do.