On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:31 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:50 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:21 PM Phil Perry <pperry@elrepo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/12/2021 17:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:58 AM Phil Perry <pperry@elrepo.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 23/11/2021 12:24, Alex Iribarren wrote:
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> While trying to run the CentOS functional tests on CS9[*], I noticed
> > > >>> that several fail because of branding issues. For example,
> > > >>> p_httpd/httpd_centos_brand_server_tokens.sh expects the server string to
> > > >>> match `Apache.*\ (CentOS)`, when in fact the server line is:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Server: Apache/2.4.51 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9) OpenSSL/3.0.0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This got me thinking about how de-branding is supposed to work in CS9. I
> > > >>> would guess the usual process would have to be reversed now, where Red
> > > >>> Hat would remove the CentOS brand from CS9 packages and add the Red Hat
> > > >>> brand for the RHEL 9.0 builds, but clearly this isn't happening yet. I
> > > >>> guess this is an oversight?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Alex
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [*] I know, I know, but I have to run *something* before you guys
> > > >>> release your own functional test suite for CS9!
> > > >>
> > > >> In the absence of anyone from the project commenting, I'm wondering how
> > > >> RHEL branding could have possibly got into a CentOS Stream release in
> > > >> the first place?
> > > >>
> > > >> The pictorial representation we are given is clear:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://blog.centos.org/2021/12/introducing-centos-stream-9/
> > > >>
> > > >> CentOS Stream is forked from Fedora Rawhide and exists upstream of any
> > > >> RHEL release so it's hard to envisage how this could possibly have
> > > >> happened. Surely now it is a case of RH removing CentOS branding for
> > > >> their RHEL release if Stream is truly the upstream development of RHEL?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wouldn't it be simpler to just call it RHEL Stream and do away with the
> > > >> extra layer of obfuscation and confusion, as that's more what it looks
> > > >> like (if it walks like a duck...)
> > > >
> > > > That would be a significant deviation of Red Hat's own brand strategy.
> > > > *All* of Red Hat's products have a "project brand" and a "product
> > > > brand".
> > > >
> > > > This has two major advantages:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It enshrines branding as an aspect of differentiation for the Red
> > > > Hat offering
> > > > 2. It makes it easy for third parties to make their own branded
> > > > product offerings based on the project and strengthen the ecosystem.
> > > >
> > > > In this particular case with Apache HTTPD, it's happening because
> > > > CentOS Stream uses the "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" BZ support product,
> > > > and that's how it gets set at build-time.
> > > >
> > > > See here: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/httpd/-/blob/9d1c57410b67b48856876b6068b36bd3d1aa32d5/httpd.spec#L6
> > > >
> > > > It's an easy fix, I'll have it proposed momentarily.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Neal,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explanation, most helpful. However, again I'm confused as
> > > the spec file referenced above has two references in the changelog to
> > > having been rebuilt for RHEL 9 Beta. Again, how can anything that has
> > > happened downstream in a RHEL 9 Beta end up back in the upstream Stream
> > > product? The fact the two changelog entries are 2 months apart suggest
> > > there is little separation between the RHEL 9 Beta and CentOS Stream 9.
>
> RHEL 9 Beta was built from CentOS Stream 9.  We had a soft opening
> back in April, and RHEL 9 work has been flowing through CentOS Stream
> 9.  It takes a while to create any RHEL release, Beta or otherwise, so
> having 2 commits months apart reference 9 Beta isn't uncommon.
>
> > > Clearly the pictorial representation presented of the relationship
> > > between Stream and RHEL is not an accurate one.
>
> It is accurate.  Can you help me understand what is confusing?  It
> shows CentOS Stream 9 being a continuously delivered OS, with RHEL
> releases being derived from it.  In this case, work went into CentOS 9
> Stream and a while later it showed up in 9 Beta.
>
> There are cases, such as embargoed CVEs, where RHEL gets work first,
> but drawing diagrams for every possible scenario isn't really helpful.
>
> > So far, I haven't seen any updates released for RHEL 9 beta, but any
> > updates would be released from auto-rebuilds for c9s to the rhel9.0
> > branch internally, most likely.
> >
> > I hope there is a refresh soon, because the current media calls itself
> > beta0, which implies beta1 or beta2 composes will exist.
>
> RHEL major releases have two different kinds of Betas.  There is the
> public beta, which is accessible via FTP by anyone, and there is a
> customer Beta program for RHEL customers that have subscriptions.  We
> do not refresh the public Beta.
>
> As a reminder, those interested in any possible updates to RHEL 9
> before the GA can sign up for a free Developer subscription and have
> access to the Beta channels on CDN.
>

My information is based on the Red Hat subscription portal, not the
FTP. I didn't even know you bothered to release it on the Red Hat FTP.