[CentOS-devel] CentOS Streams q&a

Tue Sep 24 21:27:10 UTC 2019
Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano at fidencio.org>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:20 PM Brian Stinson <brian at 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 at 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,
-- 
Fabiano Fidêncio