Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is a mistake on the CentOS side. I verified that we should have this module build in both c8 and c8s. I've tagged the c8 module build for the c8s compose and it will be included in the next compose. I'll be blunt and say that the process for stream 8 is not mature. There are glitches like this. It's all a byproduct of bolting on the Stream workflows after the RHEL8 workflows were already established. For Stream 9 the workflows are the RHEL workflows, and the RHEL maintainers will be directly responsible for their packages. Stream 8 is still technically a rebuild, it's just a rebuild of 8.X+1 content instead of 8.X. The basic process for Stream 8 works something like this. - RHEL maintainer creates an internal build - Internal build passes gating tests - RHEL maintainer attaches build to errata - Sources exported to c8s branch on git.centos.org - CentOS maintainer rebuilds the sources - CentOS maintainer generates new compose and runs t_functional test suite against it - CentOS maintainer publishes the new compose containing the update It's absolutely true that the end goal is for CentOS to become the upstream of RHEL. It's also true that it is a work in progress. On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 8:28 AM Leon Fauster via CentOS-devel <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > inspired by a different thread here, I did a dnf distro-sync on > a CS8 node and noticed that subversion would be downgraded: > > from > subversion-1.10.2-4.module_el8.3.0+703+ba2f61b7 > to > subversion-1.10.2-3.module_el8.3.0+393+21cd8ae8 > > Coming from C8 and swapping the repos to CS8 leads to this > situation (especially when doing upgrade instead of distro-sync) > but that is not my point. > > The above downgrade path recovered that subversion in CS8 still > does not have > > # rpm -q --changelog > subversion-1.10.2-4.module_el8.3.0+703+ba2f61b7.x86_64 | head -3 > * Mi Feb 10 2021 Joe Orton <jorton at redhat.com> - 1.10.2-4 > - add security fix for CVE-2020-17525 > > > Such question comes here and there again and again. How > does the package update process in CS8 looks like? Is the > process mature, any glitches. This subversion update already > exists in C8 since February. Why is it not incorporated into CS8? > > Would CentOS Stream only be promoted as "upstream" development > platform, then ... but its also promoted as successor of CentOS > Linux for people with production fleeds. > > I do not argue that C8S should be like C8 (in a wider sense) but > at least it should have some basal property (like updates are at > most after 1 or 2 month all there or so ...). > > > Any insight about the goal of the current process? Any wiki or doc page > for that? Some transparency would be my main goal, to have base for > decisions ... > > I'd really appreciate any feedback. > > Thanks, > Leon > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -- Carl George