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