On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:35 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:28 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 8/19/21 11:21 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 06:05:49AM +0200, Steven Rosenberg via CentOS-devel wrote:
Even emails like I see for for CentOS 7 would be ok.
Considering that people have had nearly 2 years to get such notices out for 8 and it's still not happened I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I would provide the information if i could, it is not easy to do because of modularity.
The thing that builds el8 modules is called MBS .. if you look at MBS operations, one of the things that gets generated as part of the filename. Here is an example:
https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=18783
Part of the file name is dynamic, created by MBS at build time. For example, one of the Source RPM filenames generated is:
runc-1.0.0-74.rc95.module_el8.4.0+886+c9a8d9ad.src.rpm
That is not it's filename in RHEL8. In RHEL 8 .. the filename is:
runc-1.0.0-74.rc95.module+el8.4.0+11822+6cc1e7d7.src.rpm
There is no easy way to figure out the file names that match up between the two systems. I took me 15 minutes to figure out that one filename, this does not scale.
Everything prior to ".module" should be unique, identifiable, and identical between RHEL and CentOS. MBS whacks %dist to add MBS
Not exactly. Sometimes RHEL maintainers add digits after %dist, which results in NVRs like foo-1.0-1.module_el8.4.0+123+a0a0a0a0.1. It's not impossible to parse, but it's much more complicated that just ignoring everything after ".module".
information at the end. So there is some mapping. Additionally, when the RPMs are imported from RHEL into CentOS, the original NVR is present as a tag. Ignoring transmodrifier remapping modulemd commits between RHEL and CentOS, you have enough baseline references to be able to connect the dots because the RHEL dist-git shorthash is present in the import tag, which would exist in the imported modulemd before transmodification.
That process could be automated, but I was never particularly motivated to do it because of the historical attitude around providing errata for CentOS users like Fedora users get.
I'm not aware of any policy against allowing this in the project. If there is I hope board members will speak up and clarify that. I suspect it's more of a resource thing than anything.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel