Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations. I know some of you, in particular, are interested in academic or non-profit uses. Today's announcement is *not* the one you're looking for so stay tuned, we're still evaluating some of the feedback and more announcements are planned.
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to *NOT* use Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution.
His blog post is available here: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution.
In fact, Bex's post is one of the key reasons I dismissed the RHEL offering.
Previously, with CentOS when the version of PHP contained a critical bug, I was able to release for users of CentOS a drop in replacement for the PHP package with a 15 line backported fix applied. Going through RH Bugzilla to get the patch applied normally takes months (if it ever gets applied). It sounded from Bex's post like using RHEL to rebuild the CentOS package is not allowed.
Does this new announcement mean there will be any revisions to Bex's blog post?
On 2/25/21 11:34 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to *NOT* use Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution.
His blog post is available here: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution.
In fact, Bex's post is one of the key reasons I dismissed the RHEL offering.
Previously, with CentOS when the version of PHP contained a critical bug, I was able to release for users of CentOS a drop in replacement for the PHP package with a 15 line backported fix applied. Going through RH Bugzilla to get the patch applied normally takes months (if it ever gets applied). It sounded from Bex's post like using RHEL to rebuild the CentOS package is not allowed.
Does this new announcement mean there will be any revisions to Bex's blog post?
I don't think so.
Red Hat is offering RHEL for Open Source organizations to use. If you want to get information on this, discuss it with the mailing address in the article. I would suppose the intended target of this are foundations like Apache, GNOME, etc. But, I am not a lawyer, or a RHEL subscription expert.
On Friday, February 26, 2021 8:42 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 2/25/21 11:34 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op... This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to NOT use Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution. His blog post is available here: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje... Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution. In fact, Bex's post is one of the key reasons I dismissed the RHEL offering. Previously, with CentOS when the version of PHP contained a critical bug, I was able to release for users of CentOS a drop in replacement for the PHP package with a 15 line backported fix applied. Going through RH Bugzilla to get the patch applied normally takes months (if it ever gets applied). It sounded from Bex's post like using RHEL to rebuild the CentOS package is not allowed. Does this new announcement mean there will be any revisions to Bex's blog post?
I don't think so.
Red Hat is offering RHEL for Open Source organizations to use. If you want to get information on this, discuss it with the mailing address in the article. I would suppose the intended target of this are foundations like Apache, GNOME, etc. But, I am not a lawyer, or a RHEL subscription expert.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?
FOSS organizations can use RHEL to create a Linux distro project but only if a Red Hat employee is on the goverance board of the project?
The offer is provided to Fedora approved software licenses. While Fedora has approved documentation and font licenses, the no cost RHEL offer does not seem to apply to open documentation and open font projects. Looking at only the Fedora approved software licenses, the list appears to be a subset of the Open Source Initiative. The page of Fedora approved software licenses even links to the OSI.
The RHEL EULA does not attempt to follow the OSI's Open Source Definition. As qualified by Bex's post, the EULA does discriminate against a field of endeavor (using RHEL to create a Linux distribution). But at the same time, historically CentOS was the preferable distribution for FOSS projects which isn't at odds with the Open Source Definition.
What is promoted now is migrating to RHEL and a EULA that is at odds with the Open Source Definition. This is not the first time this type of issue has come up. Trolltech also attempted with the Qt Library to provide it for no-cost to FOSS projects while having terms which discriminte against fields of endeavor. At the time Red Hat took a strong stance against the Trolltech business model. At the time pressure was put on Trolltech to change their business model by refusing to include Qt/KDE with Red Hat Linux.
Now Red Hat is promoting the same Trolltech business model they took such a strong stance against.
Was the objections to Trolltech a mistake or do the objections no longer apply when it is Red Hat doing it?
On 2/26/21 12:09 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
FOSS organizations can use RHEL to create a Linux distro project but only if a Red Hat employee is on the goverance board of the project?
You have misunderstood.
If Alma or Rocky or YourPersonalRebuildProject wishes to use this offering, that's one of the covered use cases. If your reading of the various articles implies differently, then I'm sure we can work to clarify that.
Your later quote:
Feb 3rd from Red Hat's Bex: "... if that project has the goal of producing a Linux distribution ... don't use Red Hat Subscription Services to create or support your project."
... does not contradict this, as it refers to obtaining SOURCE from subscription services. That has not changed with this new offering.
On Monday, March 1, 2021 8:50 AM, Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
On 2/26/21 12:09 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
FOSS organizations can use RHEL to create a Linux distro project but only if a Red Hat employee is on the goverance board of the project?
You have misunderstood.
If Alma or Rocky or YourPersonalRebuildProject wishes to use this offering, that's one of the covered use cases. If your reading of the various articles implies differently, then I'm sure we can work to clarify that.
Your later quote:
Feb 3rd from Red Hat's Bex: "... if that project has the goal of producing a Linux distribution ... don't use Red Hat Subscription Services to create or support your project."
... does not contradict this, as it refers to obtaining SOURCE from subscription services. That has not changed with this new offering.
Thank you for clarifing that.
So what the Feb 3rd blog post was really trying to say is don't use RHEL source RPMs without the debranding?
On 3/1/21 12:41 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Monday, March 1, 2021 8:50 AM, Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
On 2/26/21 12:09 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
FOSS organizations can use RHEL to create a Linux distro project but only if a Red Hat employee is on the goverance board of the project?
You have misunderstood.
If Alma or Rocky or YourPersonalRebuildProject wishes to use this offering, that's one of the covered use cases. If your reading of the various articles implies differently, then I'm sure we can work to clarify that.
Your later quote:
Feb 3rd from Red Hat's Bex: "... if that project has the goal of producing a Linux distribution ... don't use Red Hat Subscription Services to create or support your project."
... does not contradict this, as it refers to obtaining SOURCE from subscription services. That has not changed with this new offering.
Thank you for clarifing that.
So what the Feb 3rd blog post was really trying to say is don't use RHEL source RPMs without the debranding?
I do not presume to speak for Red Hat. And I am not in possession of a RHEL subscription. However, what I understand it to mean is that if you're going to do a RHEL rebuild project, use git.centos.org not source you got from your RHEL subscription.
If you are one of the tiny number of people that are 1) doing a RHEL rebuild and 2) are also a RHEL customer (I would speculate that this group of people can be counted on one hand) I would encourage you to speak to your Red Hat representative about this situation, rather than consulting this list. But that is what I understood from the blog post.
| So what the Feb 3rd blog post was really trying to say is don't use RHEL source RPMs without the debranding?
They say nothing about this case. Never was, and likely never will. I asked 20 times about such particular use-case: in Support Case Ticket, RH bugzilla, this mailing list, even left some comments to Feb 3rd post (of course banned comment, thanks for Bex?). They never explained, why is can be OK to block OPEN SOURCE src.rpm access for anyone on access.redhat.com. Always pointing that all src are in git.centos.org, but even this minute some of the RHSA-2021:0705 are missing and likely will be until some RH bugzilla ticket will be filled about it or whatever else in this world
On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:36 AM, plageat@tut.by plageat@tut.by wrote:
| So what the Feb 3rd blog post was really trying to say is don't use RHEL source RPMs without the debranding?
They say nothing about this case. Never was, and likely never will. I asked 20 times about such particular use-case: in Support Case Ticket, RH bugzilla, this mailing list, even left some comments to Feb 3rd post (of course banned comment, thanks for Bex?). They never explained, why is can be OK to block OPEN SOURCE src.rpm access for anyone on access.redhat.com. Always pointing that all src are in git.centos.org, but even this minute some of the RHSA-2021:0705 are missing and likely will be until some RH bugzilla ticket will be filled about it or whatever else in this world
That security advisory is from yesterday. The packages updated by that advisory are covered under the GPL/ASL Both of those licenses do not require making the source code available to everyone. Instead they can require the same login to access the binary packages be used to access the source code.
The security patches are probably still in the embargo period. Once that is over they should hopefully appear on git.centos.org as well.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:34:57AM +0000, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to *NOT* use Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution.
His blog post is available here: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution.
You're assuming here that either project are using this subscription services.
Have you maybe considered that they do not?
Pierre
On Friday, February 26, 2021 11:32 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:34:57AM +0000, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date with today's free RHEL announcement: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op... This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to NOT use Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution. His blog post is available here: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje... Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution.
You're assuming here that either project are using this subscription services.
Have you maybe considered that they do not?
No, I am only assuming the offer is being made.
Also, given the offer was just made, I have considered that they haven't made the transition overnight. Even if ansible allows for some amazingly fast transitions, I doubt either has already done so.
Regardless of if the project choose to accept, it doesn't change that Red Hat now seems to have two blog posts in the same month that are at odds with each other.
Feb 3rd from Red Hat's Bex: "... if that project has the goal of producing a Linux distribution ... don't use Red Hat Subscription Services to create or support your project."
Source: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Feb 25th from Red Hat's Jason Brook: "... open source to gain access to RHEL subscriptions ... which now includes ... CentOS Stream to test applications and workloads against the next release of the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform."
Source: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
That sounds like the OFFER is for a Linux distro project to use Red Hat subscription services as part of the support of the Linux distro project.
Regardless of if CentOS or Fedora is currently (or ever) take advantage of the offer does not change how the offer seems counter to the "Don't" policy previously stated.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:00 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel < centos-devel@centos.org> wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2021 11:32 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon < pingou@pingoured.fr> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:34:57AM +0000, redbaronbrowser via
CentOS-devel wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:26 AM, Mike McGrath
mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all, as I did last month I thought I'd keep the list up to date
with today's free RHEL announcement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
This one is targeted at Open Source projects and organizations.
This is confusing because we just got from Bex a statement to NOT use
Red Hat subscription service if the goal is producing a Linux distribution.
His blog post is available here:
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Now Red Hat is offering Red Hat subscription services for Fedora and
CentOS Stream which both have the goal of producing a Linux distribution.
You're assuming here that either project are using this subscription
services.
Have you maybe considered that they do not?
No, I am only assuming the offer is being made.
Also, given the offer was just made, I have considered that they haven't made the transition overnight. Even if ansible allows for some amazingly fast transitions, I doubt either has already done so.
Regardless of if the project choose to accept, it doesn't change that Red Hat now seems to have two blog posts in the same month that are at odds with each other.
Feb 3rd from Red Hat's Bex: "... if that project has the goal of producing a Linux distribution ... don't use Red Hat Subscription Services to create or support your project."
Source:
https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Feb 25th from Red Hat's Jason Brook: "... open source to gain access to RHEL subscriptions ... which now includes ... CentOS Stream to test applications and workloads against the next release of the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform."
Source:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
That sounds like the OFFER is for a Linux distro project to use Red Hat subscription services as part of the support of the Linux distro project.
Regardless of if CentOS or Fedora is currently (or ever) take advantage of the offer does not change how the offer seems counter to the "Don't" policy previously stated.
Mr (or Mrs) Browser, if you have a distribution you'd like to create based on the CentOS project sources then I would suggest starting with the blog post outlined by bex titled "A guide for using CentOS Project code. https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-project-code/" If you would like to use the ROSI project for the underlying infrastructure on that project reach out to rosi-program@redhat.com. No one on this list will be reconciling your confusion (nor do they have to).
You, yet again, continue to parse words like you're dealing with some sort of language compiler instead of actual human beings. Calling out people by name while hiding and remaining anonymous yourself. We know nothing about you other than you weren't here before the CentOS Linux announcement back in December. It is obvious to me that you are asking questions not to understand, but to poke holes in.
There are many out there who want to see this whole project blow up in Red Hat's face and maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. If you've got an actual use case you care about that you were using CentOS Linux for. Make that known. If you are looking to create a new distro based on CentOS project source, how can we help? Otherwise, if you're just here to cause chaos, distrust, and pitchforks. Just own up to it and let us know, it would save you and us a lot of time.
-Mike
On Friday, February 26, 2021 12:47 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
You, yet again, continue to parse words like you're dealing with some sort of language compiler instead of actual human beings.
You ask us to seek our own counsel regarding RHEL EULA. I'm parsing the language similar to how they seem to.
Calling out people by name while hiding and remaining anonymous yourself. We know nothing about you other than you weren't here before the CentOS Linux announcement back in December. It is obvious to me that you are asking questions not to understand, but to poke holes in.
What do you need to know about me?
Claiming I am just poking holes suggests that I already know the answer or don't care about what the answer is. That simply is not true.
There was clear gaps in the information given in December and Janurary about how and when things would proceed. KW gave information on the "what" which was a good start but far from complete.
However, you have helped reduce some of those gaps. For example, you have given a more clear example of what to expect regarding the Stream 9 kernel on gitlab. I appreciate that you did that.
But I didn't poke or create those gaps in information.
There are many out there who want to see this whole project blow up in Red Hat's face and maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. If you've got an actual use case you care about that you were using CentOS Linux for. Make that known. If you are looking to create a new distro based on CentOS project source, how can we help? Otherwise, if you're just here to cause chaos, distrust, and pitchforks. Just own up to it and let us know, it would save you and us a lot of time.
I am sorry there are people that want to see Stream blow up. I don't think any centos mailing list is the best place to accomplishing exploding Stream.
If you want a list of actual use cases for CentOS Linux I have been involved or benefited from in the past, I can try to provide that list for you.
If you need a current immediate use case, I don't really have that -- at least not something you would consider a serious request.
I have wanted for a while to rebuild CentOS for the Hercules emulator. Neither CentOS or Fedora provide anything for the zSeries platform which makes getting started hard. As far as I know the ROSI offering is not inteded to provide access to the zSeries build of RHEL or to support hobby linux distro rebuild projects. WIth the recent announcement there are probably plenty of other projects more worthy of consideration than doing that. Again, it isn't something I expect you would take to be a serious request. If ROSI ends up be a long term offer and things settle down then I might make my request then.
As far as chaos, distrust and pitchforks:
I think chaos comes with any major change. My perspective is the best way to maximize chaos is to just say nothing and wait for the CentOS 8 termination to take place.
I'll own up to having distrust but I don't think it is fair to say I am trying to cause distrust. A lot of how this transition is proceeding seems currently very similar to the early years of Fedora. My bias based on that previous experience is it seems unlikely Stream 8 will be ready for gain general acceptance by the end of the calendar year. I think there is still time to try to address that but progress has been slow.
Lastly, I do not own a pitchfork.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
If you want a list of actual use cases for CentOS Linux I have been involved or benefited from in the past, I can try to provide that list for you.
If you need a current immediate use case, I don't really have that -- at least not something you would consider a serious request.
I have wanted for a while to rebuild CentOS for the Hercules emulator. Neither CentOS or Fedora provide anything for the zSeries platform which makes getting started hard. As far as I know the ROSI offering is not inteded to provide access to the zSeries build of RHEL or to support hobby linux distro rebuild projects. WIth the recent announcement there are probably plenty of other projects more worthy of consideration than doing that. Again, it isn't something I expect you would take to be a serious request. If ROSI ends up be a long term offer and things settle down then I might make my request then.
I assume here you mean s390 (the 32-bit-that's-really-31-bit architecture) is the architecture you want to target? Because Fedora (and RHEL) support s390x (the 64-bit successor to s390). IBM has previously expressed interest in a CentOS build for IBM Z systems for RDO (specifically the LinuxONE), but I don't know if anything came out of that. It'd be nice to have all RHEL architectures present in CentOS Stream. :)
As for having s390, there is an AltArch SIG which is currently producing armv7hl builds, and that would be the right place to extend and build for s390.
On Friday, February 26, 2021 2:32 PM, Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
If you want a list of actual use cases for CentOS Linux I have been involved or benefited from in the past, I can try to provide that list for you. If you need a current immediate use case, I don't really have that -- at least not something you would consider a serious request. I have wanted for a while to rebuild CentOS for the Hercules emulator. Neither CentOS or Fedora provide anything for the zSeries platform which makes getting started hard. As far as I know the ROSI offering is not inteded to provide access to the zSeries build of RHEL or to support hobby linux distro rebuild projects. WIth the recent announcement there are probably plenty of other projects more worthy of consideration than doing that. Again, it isn't something I expect you would take to be a serious request. If ROSI ends up be a long term offer and things settle down then I might make my request then.
I assume here you mean s390 (the 32-bit-that's-really-31-bit architecture) is the architecture you want to target? Because Fedora (and RHEL) support s390x (the 64-bit successor to s390). IBM has previously expressed interest in a CentOS build for IBM Z systems for RDO (specifically the LinuxONE), but I don't know if anything came out of that. It'd be nice to have all RHEL architectures present in CentOS Stream. :)
As for having s390, there is an AltArch SIG which is currently producing armv7hl builds, and that would be the right place to extend and build for s390.
I believe s390x is supposed to be supported by Hercules.
My approach had been to try to cross compile which fell apart quickly.
I didn't see either s390 or s390x listed in CentOS AltArch but s390x is listed in Fedora. I will try that as a starting point.
At this point this is just a hobby project. I can't say if I will ever have anything worth releasing or would be of interest to others. The best I hope for in the short term was something to blog about. Getting to the point of building OpenStack/RDO looks like trying to build Mount Everest from were I am at right now.
Thanks for the pointers.
On 2/26/21 3:45 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
I didn't see either s390 or s390x listed in CentOS AltArch but s390x is listed in Fedora. I will try that as a starting point.
At this point this is just a hobby project. I can't say if I will ever have anything worth releasing or would be of interest to others.
You should check out ClefOS. https://www.sinenomine.net/products/linux/clefos
While it doesn't appear to have an EL8 rebuild as yet, EL7 is well-represented and up to date.
On 26/02/2021 21:32, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
<snip>
I assume here you mean s390 (the 32-bit-that's-really-31-bit architecture) is the architecture you want to target? Because Fedora (and RHEL) support s390x (the 64-bit successor to s390). IBM has previously expressed interest in a CentOS build for IBM Z systems for RDO (specifically the LinuxONE), but I don't know if anything came out of that. It'd be nice to have all RHEL architectures present in CentOS Stream. :)
<hint> https://twitter.com/Arrfab/status/1364266697134342151 </hint>
;-)
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:03 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
If you want a list of actual use cases for CentOS Linux I have been
involved or benefited from in the past, I can try to provide that list for you.
If you need a current immediate use case, I don't really have that -- at
least not something you would consider a serious request.
I have wanted for a while to rebuild CentOS for the Hercules emulator.
Neither CentOS or Fedora provide anything for the zSeries platform which makes getting started hard. As far as I know the ROSI offering is not inteded to provide access to the zSeries build of RHEL or to support hobby linux distro rebuild projects. WIth the recent announcement there are probably plenty of other projects more worthy of consideration than doing that. Again, it isn't something I expect you would take to be a serious request. If ROSI ends up be a long term offer and things settle down then I might make my request then.
I assume here you mean s390 (the 32-bit-that's-really-31-bit architecture) is the architecture you want to target? Because Fedora (and RHEL) support s390x (the 64-bit successor to s390). IBM has previously expressed interest in a CentOS build for IBM Z systems for RDO (specifically the LinuxONE), but I don't know if anything came out of that. It'd be nice to have all RHEL architectures present in CentOS Stream. :)
Yes you are right, there were some efforts on this for RDO Train release
and they built deps for s390x and published at http://linuxone.cloud.marist.edu:8080/repos/rdo/rhel8.0/deps/.
Also have how to deploy packstack on s390x documented at https://www.rdoproject.org/install/linuxone/. But /me not aware of any
future/current plans on that.
As for having s390, there is an AltArch SIG which is currently
producing armv7hl builds, and that would be the right place to extend and build for s390.
-- 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
Thanks and Regards Yatin Karel
Am 26.02.21 um 18:59 schrieb redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel:
Source: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/02/03/a-guide-for-using-centos-proje...
Feb 25th from Red Hat's Jason Brook: "... open source to gain access to RHEL subscriptions ... which now includes ... CentOS Stream to test applications and workloads against the next release of the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform."
Source: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
That sounds like the OFFER is for a Linux distro project to use Red Hat subscription services as part of the support of the Linux distro project.
Excuse me - but even as a non-native English speaker, I can identify that your sentence-compose above and the resulting statement, has nothing do to with what the article is telling ...
Honestly, ...
-- Leon
On 2/26/21 12:59 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
Feb 25th from Red Hat's Jason Brook: "... open source to gain access to RHEL subscriptions ... which now includes ... CentOS Stream to test applications and workloads against the next release of the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform."
Source: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
That sounds like the OFFER is for a Linux distro project to use Red Hat subscription services as part of the support of the Linux distro project.
The partial quote above is a total mis-parsing of that paragraph. The paragraph plainly and clearly should be parsed as 'ROSI' is now a third level of Red Hat's already existing support for open source projects; that is, Fedora and CentOS Stream were previous OS choices upstream open source projects could use at no cost, now ROSI is a third.
I also read that this sort of arrangement has existed previously and that ROSI is just a formalization of those arrangements (the sentence "We frequently provide no-cost access to RHEL to these groups, but the process isn’t as formalized, consistent, accessible or transparent as we’d like it to be." says that). Fedora and CentOS have quite possibly been using RHEL for some time now (I am not a member of either project's infrastructure team, so I don't know what OS is being used in the infrastructure).
The point is clear to me, and I'll paraphrase: If you were using CentOS for your infrastructure in an upstream open-source project, where the license is a Fedora-approved license, you could be eligible for no-cost RHEL to replace your CentOS. Yes, upstream is specifically mentioned (sentence, and not a sentence fragment: "We want RHEL to be used broadly in upstream open source development, both as a testing platform and as a stable foundation for development. ").
An RHEL rebuild is not "upstream open source development."
On 2/27/21 8:18 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 2/26/21 12:59 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
Feb 25th from Red Hat's Jason Brook: "... open source to gain access to RHEL subscriptions ... which now includes ... CentOS Stream to test applications and workloads against the next release of the world’s leading enterprise Linux platform."
Source: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-op...
That sounds like the OFFER is for a Linux distro project to use Red Hat subscription services as part of the support of the Linux distro project.
The partial quote above is a total mis-parsing of that paragraph. The paragraph plainly and clearly should be parsed as 'ROSI' is now a third level of Red Hat's already existing support for open source projects; that is, Fedora and CentOS Stream were previous OS choices upstream open source projects could use at no cost, now ROSI is a third.
I also read that this sort of arrangement has existed previously and that ROSI is just a formalization of those arrangements (the sentence "We frequently provide no-cost access to RHEL to these groups, but the process isn’t as formalized, consistent, accessible or transparent as we’d like it to be." says that). Fedora and CentOS have quite possibly been using RHEL for some time now (I am not a member of either project's infrastructure team, so I don't know what OS is being used in the infrastructure).
The point is clear to me, and I'll paraphrase: If you were using CentOS for your infrastructure in an upstream open-source project, where the license is a Fedora-approved license, you could be eligible for no-cost RHEL to replace your CentOS. Yes, upstream is specifically mentioned (sentence, and not a sentence fragment: "We want RHEL to be used broadly in upstream open source development, both as a testing platform and as a stable foundation for development. ").
An RHEL rebuild is not "upstream open source development."
Thanks Lamar .. could not have said it better myself :)
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:19 AM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
An RHEL rebuild is not "upstream open source development."
CentOs Stream also cannot be if you're reliant on build packages from the "Devel" channel. There's not currently access to the "quota-devel" package for compiling the full Samba suite with full domain controller features enabled: I looked yesterday.
I'll rebuild quota from SRPM to get the devel package if I have to, I did it last year before CentOS 8 Devel was activated. The necessity for the "Devel" channel is one of the flaws with CentOS 8, Inad it interfered a couple of days ago with testing Samba 4.14.0rc2.
-
Fabian Arrotin -
Johnny Hughes -
Lamar Owen -
Leon Fauster -
Mike McGrath -
Neal Gompa -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
plageat＠tut.by -
redbaronbrowser -
Rich Bowen -
YATIN KAREL