So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
On 9/24/19 8:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. .....
Google cache URL that currently gives the article: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IXAYiQ-ErwgJ:https://t...
We will have detailed information in just a few hours, including some answers to what we anticipate to be the most frequent questions. Thanks for your patience just a *tiny* bit longer.
--Rich
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/24/19 8:52 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
We will have detailed information in just a few hours, including some answers to what we anticipate to be the most frequent questions. Thanks for your patience just a *tiny* bit longer.
Not a problem, Rich.... looking forward to the info to break!
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
* Jim Perrin:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Thanks, here we go:
Will there be multiple streams or just one?
Is your priority to deliver the kernel first, against regular CentOS 8 userspace, or will all packages be treated the same?
On 9/24/19 11:34 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Jim Perrin:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Thanks, here we go:
Will there be multiple streams or just one?
Currently there is just one stream. We (CentOS and RH) may choose to add more in the future. (please keep in mind, lots of this is *handwave* so sometimes technical details will drive policy, other times the other way around).
Is your priority to deliver the kernel first, against regular CentOS 8 userspace, or will all packages be treated the same?
We're starting with the kernel, and will work out plans to expand. I don't want to treat the kernel or any other package as 'special' but it was one of the simpler "big ticket" pieces to start with.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
Best Regards,
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
We're also looking at what this means for repos like fasttrack and our SIG structures, as some things may be more applicable there.
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 13:25 -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
Where will primary discussion and submissions related to streams take place? WIl the primary be the CentOS bug tracker or Red Hat bugzilla?
Regards
Phil
On 9/24/19 1:31 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 13:25 -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
Where will primary discussion and submissions related to streams take place? WIl the primary be the CentOS bug tracker or Red Hat bugzilla?
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:35 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:31 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 13:25 -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
Where will primary discussion and submissions related to streams take place? WIl the primary be the CentOS bug tracker or Red Hat bugzilla?
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
*makes the face at the thought of JIRA*
I'd like to see usage of the Red Hat Bugzilla. It'd make it much easier to connect bugs across RHEL, Fedora, and CentOS...
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 16:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:35 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:31 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 13:25 -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin < jperrin@centos.org> wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
Where will primary discussion and submissions related to streams take place? WIl the primary be the CentOS bug tracker or Red Hat bugzilla?
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
*makes the face at the thought of JIRA*
I'd like to see usage of the Red Hat Bugzilla. It'd make it much easier to connect bugs across RHEL, Fedora, and CentOS...
I cannot make a face, as I do not believe I have ever had contact with Jira.
I do tend to agree with Neal and Pat re RH bugzilla. Easier for the all projects and the people involved in them.
Regards
Phil
On 9/24/19 3:35 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:31 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 13:25 -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:50 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Does the Stream change the way to contributing to a specific package on CentOS?
"It depends". It's a snarky answer, but it's true.
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
We have to realize that stream is intended to target the next RHEL release, so if you didn't see packages being rapidly rebased before, you probably shouldn't expect that to change. If it's a simple fix, a feature addition that you've backported, that sort of thing, then the vision would be a pull request and discussion, with the goal of having that merged in.
Where will primary discussion and submissions related to streams take place? WIl the primary be the CentOS bug tracker or Red Hat bugzilla?
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
Use of RH Bugzilla might be handy as it could permit quick correlation of abrt reports across product/version/etc.
Pat
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:35:26PM -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
Jira would be terribly disappointing. Either Bugzilla would be preferable.
Le 25/09/2019 à 04:30, Mason Loring Bliss a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:35:26PM -0700, Jim Perrin wrote:
The discussion will be here on the -devel mailing list. We're currently using the CentOS bug tracker, but we have been exploring the idea of using either RH's bugzilla, or Jira (don't make that face).
Jira would be terribly disappointing. Either Bugzilla would be preferable.
How a purely free software based distro can even suggest using proprietary tool like Jira as a valid option for a mandatory tool mostly everyone will be using ? That paints a really sad picture.
X.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 08:50:37PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
One of the main complaints from libosinfo consumers is how outdated the library is when CentOS is released (we have upstream releases of our database monthly). What would be the best way to get our library always up-to-date taking advantage of Streams?
Modules in EPEL will be able to carry newer module streams than those in CentOS Stream (or RHEL). This is still in development, but should be in place soon. That's what I'd encourage -- have a "monthly" module stream which people could opt into.
On 9/24/19 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
I assume that the FAQ page at https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ will grow to include some of the Q&A discussed here?
My question originates from the (lack of) available desktops available with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
Thanks,
Greg
On 2019-09-24 1:03 p.m., Greg Bailey wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
I assume that the FAQ page at https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ will grow to include some of the Q&A discussed here?
My question originates from the (lack of) available desktops available with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
The name is just 'stream' I think, not 'streams' implying there really is just one path of:
CentOS stream -> CentOS release + RedHat release
On ti, 24 syys 2019, David wrote:
On 2019-09-24 1:03 p.m., Greg Bailey wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
I assume that the FAQ page at https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ will grow to include some of the Q&A discussed here?
My question originates from the (lack of) available desktops available with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
The name is just 'stream' I think, not 'streams' implying there really is just one path of:
CentOS stream -> CentOS release + RedHat release
I hope we'll get some 'side-streams', in a way similar to how modules' streams used in RHEL 8, to allow such alternative versions to exist for those who wants them. They don't need to be fully supported but at least would provide a way to test new versions before updating CentOS Stream primary content.
Though, I think first a bit of definitions would help here. Even in a sentence above I had to invent new terms as there are none defined yet.
For now, my understanding is that whatever consitutes CentOS Stream is built off CentOS 8 branches in git.centos.org. Let me take FreeIPA example. For many years our CentOS users asked for new versions of FreeIPA to be available in CentOS from FreeIPA upstream and we weren't able to achieve that as we needed to go with multiple changes through RHEL first.
RHEL 8 packages FreeIPA in a module, with two streams: idm:client and idm:DL1, representing client-only and server-side parts of FreeIPA packaging and dependencies. The naming of branches in CentOS is following RHEL naming, not CentOS Stream itself (here it is a bit confusing for uninitiated but those 'stream' parts in the branch names are really after module streams, not CentOS Stream), so there are no separate branches for CentOS Stream: c8-stream-DL1 and c8-stream-client are direct counterparts of stream-idm-DL1 and stream-idm-client in RHEL 8.0. (see https://git.centos.org/modules/idm/c/86698e5c597737f26cde6ff11536d6707dfd480... for context)
With CentOS Stream, technically we can create additional module streams that correspond to additional versions of the same content.
Suppose, I want to get FreeIPA ipa-4-8 upstream git branch (or even just git master branch) provided with daily rebuilds. I'd imagine this would need to go into a separate branch. Let's say there would be c8-stream-DL1-daily and c8-stream-client-daily branches for idm module and IPA packages involved.
Those two branches could be built and two new streams would be available for idm module in CentOS Stream. Users then could test / use these idm:DL1-daily and idm:client-daily streams instead of the idm:DL1 and idm:client streams.
So far, so good. These new two streams go through some development, bug-fixes and accumulate some content changes. They do not affect normal idm:DL1 and idm:client module streams from RHEL even in CentOS Stream.
Eventually, we would propose those changes for integration into c8-stream-DL1 / c8-stream-client. Ideally, this would be as simple as proposing a pull request in git.centos.org pagure instance. I wonder if such flow would be acceptable -- it actually would be pretty cool if such a pull request could be automatically relayed into whatever is powering dist-git for RHEL 8. Of course, the other side would need to see if those changes could get in due to whatever regulatory requirements Red Hat has. Certainly, this would make my integration work for newer upstream releases easier -- given that it would also be available to CentOS Stream users to test way before RHEL customers would get the packages delivered, in ideal world.
It looks brighter for modules because each module stream can be fairly isolated here. We can, for example, go extreme and pull newer krb5 build into the idm:DL1-daily so that all shiny work that relies on new MIT Kerberos APIs (and ABIs) would be encapsulated in the module stream for testing purposes. After it is all tested/coordinated, we can look at providing a pull request that updates primary krb5 build and primary idm streams in one go and get it all delivered to CentOS Stream / RHEL.
This doesn't look so bright for non-modular packages. They don't have ways to isolate themselves other than becoming a package in a separate module:stream just for that purpose. Or being delivered in a completely separate repository.
So, I guess, there are many technical questions to answer but I have few related to what I'd see as stumbling blocks with my RHEL workflow experience:
- how to get pull requests back and forth between CentOS Stream and RHEL proper
- how to handle these backward pull requests in RHEL workflow where there are certain limits on what goes into which minor release to keep ABI/API changes under control, etc
- how to make these pull requests usable on both sides for packages which passed through debranding
- how to handle module stream renaming for these pull requests
So far all the answers for these in Fedora-RHEL pairing were 'it is all manual work'. We don't use modules for FreeIPA in Fedora, for example. We do use them in RHEL. With CentOS Stream we already have modules on both sides but they use different naming and still would require manual work. However, it is promising -- if we could get it automated, that will really help all of us.
On 9/24/19 12:03 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
I assume that the FAQ page at https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ will grow to include some of the Q&A discussed here?
That is a safe assumption.
My question originates from the (lack of) available desktops available with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
Desktops would continue to be done via EPEL, or via a desktop SIG if someone wanted to create one. We've probably overloaded the term, but please don't conflate the name CentOS Stream, with AppStream, module streams. The 'official' CentOS Stream packages will reflect RHEL development code. If it's not accepted in RHEL development it won't be in the 'official' Stream release.
Ignoring lots of the "we haven't built it yet" mechanics, contributing to a SIG or EPEL should be reasonably similar. There may be guidelines or policy variance, but that should be about it.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 9/24/19 12:03 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
On 9/24/19 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
I assume that the FAQ page at https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ will grow to include some of the Q&A discussed here?
That is a safe assumption.
My question originates from the (lack of) available desktops available with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
Desktops would continue to be done via EPEL, or via a desktop SIG if someone wanted to create one. We've probably overloaded the term, but please don't conflate the name CentOS Stream, with AppStream, module streams. The 'official' CentOS Stream packages will reflect RHEL development code. If it's not accepted in RHEL development it won't be in the 'official' Stream release.
Ignoring lots of the "we haven't built it yet" mechanics, contributing to a SIG or EPEL should be reasonably similar. There may be guidelines or policy variance, but that should be about it.
As one of the people building KDE in EPEL, I'd rather we didn't pull more desktops into RHEL and/or CentOS Stream. That sounds really backwards because I've always loved KDE, but here's why.
KDE always had the problem with stagnation in RHEL. It's the nature of an enterprise release. But now that it's not in there, and we have the promise of modules in EPEL8, we are able to have KDE stay in sync with the latest stable Fedora. No more 6 year old KDE. Ya!! Plus, once we get that smoothed out, we can have another module stream that keeps in sync with the Rawhide KDE. And ... if someone wants to take it on, they can even take one of those and make it stable, and maintain KDE on that version for the next 5 to 10 years. (Won't be me, but if someone wants to, they can.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'd much rather desktops stay in EPEL rather than be pulled into CentOS streaming, and then possibly RHEL.
Troy
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:48:55PM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
with CentOS 8. Would alternative desktops such as MATE (or KDE, etc.) continue to be published via the EPEL repository, or could new packages be introduced via "streams"? How does the contribution model for streams differ from EPEL packagers?
[...]
Ignoring lots of the "we haven't built it yet" mechanics, contributing to a SIG or EPEL should be reasonably similar. There may be guidelines or policy variance, but that should be about it.
[...]
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'd much rather desktops stay in EPEL rather than be pulled into CentOS streaming, and then possibly RHEL.
I think the ideal state here is that EPEL packages and modules are easily and seamlessly available in CentOS Stream.
On 9/24/2019 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
Thanks for the openness -- this announcement is certainly very heartening news! The "C" in CentOS has long-meant Community-rebuilt and Community-supported, so having partially- Community-contributed is a great addition.
My question is mostly on package management and how submissions, upstream patches, and maintenance might work. Will there be standards similar to EPEL which can be written against? For that matter, given the necessary coordination between EL users and EPEL, how does EPEL enter the picture here?
Finally, curious whether and how Modularity and the rolling nature of Stream will interact.
-jc
On 9/24/19 12:25 PM, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
On 9/24/2019 11:24 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
Thanks for the openness -- this announcement is certainly very heartening news! The "C" in CentOS has long-meant Community-rebuilt and Community-supported, so having partially- Community-contributed is a great addition.
It's the right way to do it. It doesn't mean we can be open about *everything*, but we'll do the best we can.
My question is mostly on package management and how submissions, upstream patches, and maintenance might work. Will there be standards similar to EPEL which can be written against? For that matter, given the necessary coordination between EL users and EPEL, how does EPEL enter the picture here?
The EPEL steering committee and the CentOS Project will need to work together to sort out how the two work together. I would like to see EPEL functional for both Stream and the standard release.
Yes, we'll have standards for submissions but we haven't worked out what those are yet. At a minimum baseline you can reasonably expect:
1. Code must be accepted by the upstream. 2. Code should be additive in nature (no turning things off or reducing functionality) 3. Code should come with documentation or an explanation for why the change should be accepted. 4. Code should come with tests where appropriate.
Finally, curious whether and how Modularity and the rolling nature of Stream will interact.
Same.
On 24/09/2019 19:24, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Hi Jim,
Does the Stream kernel (kernel-4.18.0-144.el8) retain kABI compatibility with the RHEL/CentOS kernel during this development phase? IOW, is it a viable target to develop against or is it purely a development target in it's own right?
Phil
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:34 PM Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org wrote:
On 24/09/2019 19:24, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Hi Jim,
Does the Stream kernel (kernel-4.18.0-144.el8) retain kABI compatibility with the RHEL/CentOS kernel during this development phase? IOW, is it a viable target to develop against or is it purely a development target in it's own right?
Insomuch as the next minor version of RHEL must retain kABI compatibility yes, if you find otherwise its a bug and please let us know.
Also just a quick intro from me. I'm going to try to participate in threads like this while we get CentOS Stream figured out. I'm Senior Director of Platform Engineering at Red Hat and I currently manage Fedora, CentOS Infrastructure, CoreOS, and about 70% of the packages in RHEL. Jim and his team report up through me. Some of you may remember me from my earlier days in the community as Fedora Infrastructure Lead (around the time EPEL was created).
Keep the questions coming everyone and please do be patient with us while we get things figured out. We're trying to do it in the open but that means we didn't build CentOS Stream behind the scenes for a grand unveiling today. It's going to be a bumpy few months so please do pardon our dust.
-Mike
Phil
On 24/09/2019 21:02, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:34 PM Phil Perry <pperry@elrepo.org mailto:pperry@elrepo.org> wrote:
On 24/09/2019 19:24, Jim Perrin wrote: > Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. > I'm happy to answer questions about Stream. > Hi Jim, Does the Stream kernel (kernel-4.18.0-144.el8) retain kABI compatibility with the RHEL/CentOS kernel during this development phase? IOW, is it a viable target to develop against or is it purely a development target in it's own right?Insomuch as the next minor version of RHEL must retain kABI compatibility yes, if you find otherwise its a bug and please let us know.
Brilliant - thanks Mike.
Also just a quick intro from me. I'm going to try to participate in threads like this while we get CentOS Stream figured out. I'm Senior Director of Platform Engineering at Red Hat and I currently manage Fedora, CentOS Infrastructure, CoreOS, and about 70% of the packages in RHEL. Jim and his team report up through me. Some of you may remember me from my earlier days in the community as Fedora Infrastructure Lead (around the time EPEL was created).
Keep the questions coming everyone and please do be patient with us while we get things figured out. We're trying to do it in the open but that means we didn't build CentOS Stream behind the scenes for a grand unveiling today. It's going to be a bumpy few months so please do pardon our dust.
-Mike
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Still about libosinfo, but from a different perspective ...
Of course we want to have CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream added to libosinfo (with unattended installations support). However, we have messed up in the past when adding CentOS 7 as we conuted that CentOS 7 would follow exactly the same numbering as RHEL 7. After some time, turned out that we (libosinfo) should have added CentOS 7 as "centos7" and not as "centos7.0".
In order to avoid the same mistake: - Shall we go for CentOS 8 as a "rolling 8", meaning, no 8.1, 8.2 ... just 8? - Shall we go for CentOS Stream or shall we target the Stream as *8* Stream (and here implying that we'll always see a major stream release)?
Best Regards,
On 9/24/19 1:57 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Still about libosinfo, but from a different perspective ...
Of course we want to have CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream added to libosinfo (with unattended installations support). However, we have messed up in the past when adding CentOS 7 as we conuted that CentOS 7 would follow exactly the same numbering as RHEL 7. After some time, turned out that we (libosinfo) should have added CentOS 7 as "centos7" and not as "centos7.0".
In order to avoid the same mistake:
- Shall we go for CentOS 8 as a "rolling 8", meaning, no 8.1, 8.2 ... just 8?
I believe CentOS 8 should be a rolling 8, the same as 7, but I'll defer to smarter people like Brian or Fabian to tell me if I'm wrong.
- Shall we go for CentOS Stream or shall we target the Stream as *8*
Stream (and here implying that we'll always see a major stream release)?
This one is slightly tricky. There is only "CentOS Stream" for now, but for technical reasons we've tagged it in yum/dnf as '8-stream' via the stream variable. This may take some discussion before I can give you an official answer.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:04 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:57 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Still about libosinfo, but from a different perspective ...
Of course we want to have CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream added to libosinfo (with unattended installations support). However, we have messed up in the past when adding CentOS 7 as we conuted that CentOS 7 would follow exactly the same numbering as RHEL 7. After some time, turned out that we (libosinfo) should have added CentOS 7 as "centos7" and not as "centos7.0".
In order to avoid the same mistake:
- Shall we go for CentOS 8 as a "rolling 8", meaning, no 8.1, 8.2 ... just 8?
I believe CentOS 8 should be a rolling 8, the same as 7, but I'll defer to smarter people like Brian or Fabian to tell me if I'm wrong.
Right, I'll wait for their answers before adding the entry to osinfo-db.
- Shall we go for CentOS Stream or shall we target the Stream as *8*
Stream (and here implying that we'll always see a major stream release)?
This one is slightly tricky. There is only "CentOS Stream" for now, but for technical reasons we've tagged it in yum/dnf as '8-stream' via the stream variable. This may take some discussion before I can give you an official answer.
Okay. I'll wait for the official answer before adding the "Stream" entry.
Thanks a ton for the answers, Jim!
Best Regards,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, at 16:04, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:57 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Still about libosinfo, but from a different perspective ...
Of course we want to have CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream added to libosinfo (with unattended installations support). However, we have messed up in the past when adding CentOS 7 as we conuted that CentOS 7 would follow exactly the same numbering as RHEL 7. After some time, turned out that we (libosinfo) should have added CentOS 7 as "centos7" and not as "centos7.0".
In order to avoid the same mistake:
- Shall we go for CentOS 8 as a "rolling 8", meaning, no 8.1, 8.2 ... just 8?
What are the tradeoffs here? I'd lean toward calling it a "rolling 8" for CentOS Linux.
If it helps we're going with this CPE string for all CentOS Linux 8 composes: cpe:/o:centos:centos:8,CentOS 8
I believe CentOS 8 should be a rolling 8, the same as 7, but I'll defer to smarter people like Brian or Fabian to tell me if I'm wrong.
- Shall we go for CentOS Stream or shall we target the Stream as *8*
Stream (and here implying that we'll always see a major stream release)?
This one is slightly tricky. There is only "CentOS Stream" for now, but for technical reasons we've tagged it in yum/dnf as '8-stream' via the stream variable. This may take some discussion before I can give you an official answer.
-- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:20 PM Brian Stinson brian@bstinson.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, at 16:04, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 1:57 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:24 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Still about libosinfo, but from a different perspective ...
Of course we want to have CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream added to libosinfo (with unattended installations support). However, we have messed up in the past when adding CentOS 7 as we conuted that CentOS 7 would follow exactly the same numbering as RHEL 7. After some time, turned out that we (libosinfo) should have added CentOS 7 as "centos7" and not as "centos7.0".
In order to avoid the same mistake:
- Shall we go for CentOS 8 as a "rolling 8", meaning, no 8.1, 8.2 ... just 8?
What are the tradeoffs here? I'd lean toward calling it a "rolling 8" for CentOS Linux.
If it helps we're going with this CPE string for all CentOS Linux 8 composes: cpe:/o:centos:centos:8,CentOS 8
When we're dealing with a distro which wants to have their minor releases represented, we usually have to add one new entry for each minor release. While it's not exactly an issue, maintenance has a cost.
If we're dealing with a "rolling" entry, the only updates we have to do in the entry itself is when a new ISO is released (in case there's no stable link for the "latest" ISO).
All in all, as a maintainer, having "CentOS 8" instead of "CentOS 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, ..." makes my life easier. However, we usually go for the distro's preference.
Best Regards,
Hi all,
I'm Alex Iribarren, another member of the Linux team at CERN, along with Daniel Abad and Ben Morrice.
We'd like to understand the relationship between CentOS Stream and CentOS 8.x. Are we to assume that 8.x releases will be "snapshots" of CentOS Stream, released at regular intervals? If so, at what frequency?
Best regards, Alex
On 9/24/19 8:24 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/25/19 10:30 AM, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm Alex Iribarren, another member of the Linux team at CERN, along with Daniel Abad and Ben Morrice.
We'd like to understand the relationship between CentOS Stream and CentOS 8.x. Are we to assume that 8.x releases will be "snapshots" of CentOS Stream, released at regular intervals? If so, at what frequency?
Hi Alex. No, you missunderstood.
As Jim Perrin wrote: "They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future."
CentOS Stream will be development distro for next RHEL minor (and later major) version.
Once Red Hat releases RHEL, CentOS project will rebuild it and release CentOS, just like it did so far.
Best regards, Alex
On 9/24/19 8:24 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Bonjour (in english: Hi)
Jusqu'à maintenant on pensait que Fedora était le laboratoire de RedHat.
Si à présent Il y a un "Centos Stream" qui joue ce rôle, comment se situe-t-il par rapport à Fedora ? (qui dépend aussi de RedHat)
english try:
Till now one thought that Fedora was the laboratory for RedHat. If there is now a "Centos Stream" which plays this role, how does it take place between these both which depend also on RedHat ?
cdt
Le Wed Sep 25 2019 10:46:55 GMT+0200 (CEST), Ljubomir Ljubojevic centos@plnet.rs a écrit :
On 9/25/19 10:30 AM, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm Alex Iribarren, another member of the Linux team at CERN, along with Daniel Abad and Ben Morrice.
We'd like to understand the relationship between CentOS Stream and CentOS 8.x. Are we to assume that 8.x releases will be "snapshots" of CentOS Stream, released at regular intervals? If so, at what frequency?
Hi Alex. No, you missunderstood.
As Jim Perrin wrote: "They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future."
CentOS Stream will be development distro for next RHEL minor (and later major) version.
Once Red Hat releases RHEL, CentOS project will rebuild it and release CentOS, just like it did so far.
Best regards, Alex
On 9/24/19 8:24 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:05 AM john tatt via CentOS-devel < centos-devel@centos.org> wrote:
Bonjour (in english: Hi)
Jusqu'à maintenant on pensait que Fedora était le laboratoire de RedHat.
Si à présent Il y a un "Centos Stream" qui joue ce rôle, comment se situe-t-il par rapport à Fedora ? (qui dépend aussi de RedHat)
english try:
Till now one thought that Fedora was the laboratory for RedHat. If there is now a "Centos Stream" which plays this role, how does it take place between these both which depend also on RedHat ?
No changes to Fedora announced today. We've always developed RHEL internally, with nightly builds (as you'd expect) it's just now we're going to do that in the public, allow interaction earlier, and we're calling that "CentOS Stream" because we think that its a good fit for the community here.
Fedora continues to be the hotbed of innovation for driving new and interesting features into RHEL (and now into CentOS Stream).
-Mike
cdt
Le Wed Sep 25 2019 10:46:55 GMT+0200 (CEST), Ljubomir Ljubojevic < centos@plnet.rs> a écrit :
On 9/25/19 10:30 AM, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I'm Alex Iribarren, another member of the Linux team at CERN, along with Daniel Abad and Ben Morrice.
We'd like to understand the relationship between CentOS Stream and CentOS 8.x. Are we to assume that 8.x releases will be "snapshots" of CentOS Stream, released at regular intervals? If so, at what frequency?
Hi Alex. No, you missunderstood.
As Jim Perrin wrote: "They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future."
CentOS Stream will be development distro for next RHEL minor (and later major) version.
Once Red Hat releases RHEL, CentOS project will rebuild it and release CentOS, just like it did so far.
Best regards, Alex
On 9/24/19 8:24 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Okay, now that the release is out, and everything is announced properly. I'm happy to answer questions about Stream.
Short version is: We're working with RHEL leadership to help make RHEL development more transparent and collaborative with community
engagement.
Lots of the engineering work is still "TBD" to make this happen, because we wanted to design/develop this in public collaboration with RH as possible.
On 9/24/19 5:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Honestly, I read the announcement on the RedHat site and got even more confused (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/transforming-development-experience-within-ce...), partly because there were extra products there I wasn't aware of. I think I have my head wrapped around it now.
* To borrow someone else's attempt at understanding, is this along the right lines?
Currently: fedora --> RHEL --> centos,
New: fedora --> centos stream --> RHEL --> centos
You're describing CentOS Stream as parallel to CentOS in the blog post linked above, but then from the rest of it it looks like it's being used to feed stable features in to RHEL, which would naturally then make their way in to CentOS, same as things do currently.
* "It is a single, continuous stream of content with updates several times daily, encompassing the latest and greatest from the RHEL codebase."
What level of changes/updates are we talking about? More up to date applications or libraries, or more of just the same kinds of updates as we'd expect to see between, say, 8.0 and 8.1 (typically more minor upgrades of libraries and applications.)
Finally, how does this relate to RedHat Application Streams, or does it not at all? If it doesn't relate, that feels like a bit of a branding overload of a term that may unintentionally cause some confusion.
Paul
On 9/24/19 05:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailma...
On 9/24/19 2:55 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Honestly, I read the announcement on the RedHat site and got even more confused (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/transforming-development-experience-within-ce...), partly because there were extra products there I wasn't aware of. I think I have my head wrapped around it now.
- To borrow someone else's attempt at understanding, is this along the
right lines?
Currently: fedora --> RHEL --> centos,
This is accurate for how major releases are developed, but during that fedora->RHEL bit, it's currently not public.
For the current minor releases (the .1, .2, etc) there isn't really an 'upstream' for rhel to pull from, or a place for people to publicly see what's coming.
New: fedora --> centos stream --> RHEL --> centos
You're describing CentOS Stream as parallel to CentOS in the blog post linked above, but then from the rest of it it looks like it's being used to feed stable features in to RHEL, which would naturally then make their way in to CentOS, same as things do currently.
They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future.
- "It is a single, continuous stream of content with updates several
times daily, encompassing the latest and greatest from the RHEL codebase."
What level of changes/updates are we talking about? More up to date applications or libraries, or more of just the same kinds of updates as we'd expect to see between, say, 8.0 and 8.1 (typically more minor upgrades of libraries and applications.)
A rough analogy is "When RHEL 8.1 is out, CentOS Stream content would be the development of what should become 8.2".
Finally, how does this relate to RedHat Application Streams, or does it not at all? If it doesn't relate, that feels like a bit of a branding overload of a term that may unintentionally cause some confusion.
The branding is admittedly a little confusing. CentOS Stream is a rolling development branch for RHEL. AppStreams are a conceptual piece of RHEL, CentOS and CentOS Stream. Where they are in their lifecycle differs based on which one you're running.
Does that help explain it a bit, or did I just muddle it up further for you?
Paul
On 9/24/19 05:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailma...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/25/19 12:51 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 9/24/19 2:55 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Honestly, I read the announcement on the RedHat site and got even more confused (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/transforming-development-experience-within-ce...), partly because there were extra products there I wasn't aware of. I think I have my head wrapped around it now.
- To borrow someone else's attempt at understanding, is this along the
right lines?
Currently: fedora --> RHEL --> centos,
This is accurate for how major releases are developed, but during that fedora->RHEL bit, it's currently not public.
For the current minor releases (the .1, .2, etc) there isn't really an 'upstream' for rhel to pull from, or a place for people to publicly see what's coming.
New: fedora --> centos stream --> RHEL --> centos
You're describing CentOS Stream as parallel to CentOS in the blog post linked above, but then from the rest of it it looks like it's being used to feed stable features in to RHEL, which would naturally then make their way in to CentOS, same as things do currently.
They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future.
- "It is a single, continuous stream of content with updates several
times daily, encompassing the latest and greatest from the RHEL codebase."
What level of changes/updates are we talking about? More up to date applications or libraries, or more of just the same kinds of updates as we'd expect to see between, say, 8.0 and 8.1 (typically more minor upgrades of libraries and applications.)
A rough analogy is "When RHEL 8.1 is out, CentOS Stream content would be the development of what should become 8.2".
I am happy to learn I understood the process when I first read the announcement, even though I was totaly blindsided with appearance of CentOS Stream :-)
Finally, how does this relate to RedHat Application Streams, or does it not at all? If it doesn't relate, that feels like a bit of a branding overload of a term that may unintentionally cause some confusion.
The branding is admittedly a little confusing. CentOS Stream is a rolling development branch for RHEL. AppStreams are a conceptual piece of RHEL, CentOS and CentOS Stream. Where they are in their lifecycle differs based on which one you're running.
Does that help explain it a bit, or did I just muddle it up further for you?
Paul
On 9/24/19 05:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailma...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:51 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 9/24/19 2:55 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Honestly, I read the announcement on the RedHat site and got even more confused (
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/transforming-development-experience-within-ce... ),
partly because there were extra products there I wasn't aware of. I think I have my head wrapped around it now.
- To borrow someone else's attempt at understanding, is this along the
right lines?
Currently: fedora --> RHEL --> centos,
This is accurate for how major releases are developed, but during that fedora->RHEL bit, it's currently not public.
For the current minor releases (the .1, .2, etc) there isn't really an 'upstream' for rhel to pull from, or a place for people to publicly see what's coming.
New: fedora --> centos stream --> RHEL --> centos
You're describing CentOS Stream as parallel to CentOS in the blog post linked above, but then from the rest of it it looks like it's being used to feed stable features in to RHEL, which would naturally then make their way in to CentOS, same as things do currently.
They are two separate distributions. Currently CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux differ only slightly, but this will change in the future.
Another way of saying for CentOS Stream is the wording used in [1]
[1] https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-and-centos-stream/
- "It is a single, continuous stream of content with updates several
times daily, encompassing the latest and greatest from the RHEL
codebase."
What level of changes/updates are we talking about? More up to date applications or libraries, or more of just the same kinds of updates as we'd expect to see between, say, 8.0 and 8.1 (typically more minor upgrades of libraries and applications.)
A rough analogy is "When RHEL 8.1 is out, CentOS Stream content would be the development of what should become 8.2".
Finally, how does this relate to RedHat Application Streams, or does it not at all? If it doesn't relate, that feels like a bit of a branding overload of a term that may unintentionally cause some confusion.
The branding is admittedly a little confusing. CentOS Stream is a rolling development branch for RHEL. AppStreams are a conceptual piece of RHEL, CentOS and CentOS Stream. Where they are in their lifecycle differs based on which one you're running.
Does that help explain it a bit, or did I just muddle it up further for you?
Paul
On 9/24/19 05:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, now that Earth has caught up to the TARDIS......
Would someone from the CentOS team like to explain CentOS Streams? I saw an article at The NewStack yesterday that gave some info; oddly enough that article is giving a 404 right now, but Google still has it in cache. But Johnny's statement a few days ago, and then this announcement, makes this new CentOS Streams business look interesting. I see a new directory on the mirrors called 8-stream with interesting content......
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailma...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Alex -
Alexander Bokovoy -
Brian Stinson -
Daniel Comnea -
David -
Fabiano Fidêncio -
Florian Weimer -
Greg Bailey -
Japheth Cleaver -
Jim Perrin -
john tatt -
Lamar Owen -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Mason Loring Bliss -
Matthew Miller -
Mike McGrath -
Neal Gompa -
Pat Riehecky -
Paul Graydon -
Phil Perry -
Phil Wyett -
Rich Bowen -
Troy Dawson -
Xavier Bachelot