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 > > 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 at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >