On 04/12/2021 17:16, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:58 AM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: >> >> On 23/11/2021 12:24, Alex Iribarren wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> While trying to run the CentOS functional tests on CS9[*], I noticed >>> that several fail because of branding issues. For example, >>> p_httpd/httpd_centos_brand_server_tokens.sh expects the server string to >>> match `Apache.*\ (CentOS)`, when in fact the server line is: >>> >>> Server: Apache/2.4.51 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9) OpenSSL/3.0.0 >>> >>> This got me thinking about how de-branding is supposed to work in CS9. I >>> would guess the usual process would have to be reversed now, where Red >>> Hat would remove the CentOS brand from CS9 packages and add the Red Hat >>> brand for the RHEL 9.0 builds, but clearly this isn't happening yet. I >>> guess this is an oversight? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alex >>> >>> [*] I know, I know, but I have to run *something* before you guys >>> release your own functional test suite for CS9! >> >> In the absence of anyone from the project commenting, I'm wondering how >> RHEL branding could have possibly got into a CentOS Stream release in >> the first place? >> >> The pictorial representation we are given is clear: >> >> https://blog.centos.org/2021/12/introducing-centos-stream-9/ >> >> CentOS Stream is forked from Fedora Rawhide and exists upstream of any >> RHEL release so it's hard to envisage how this could possibly have >> happened. Surely now it is a case of RH removing CentOS branding for >> their RHEL release if Stream is truly the upstream development of RHEL? >> >> Wouldn't it be simpler to just call it RHEL Stream and do away with the >> extra layer of obfuscation and confusion, as that's more what it looks >> like (if it walks like a duck...) > > That would be a significant deviation of Red Hat's own brand strategy. > *All* of Red Hat's products have a "project brand" and a "product > brand". > > This has two major advantages: > > 1. It enshrines branding as an aspect of differentiation for the Red > Hat offering > 2. It makes it easy for third parties to make their own branded > product offerings based on the project and strengthen the ecosystem. > > In this particular case with Apache HTTPD, it's happening because > CentOS Stream uses the "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" BZ support product, > and that's how it gets set at build-time. > > See here: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/httpd/-/blob/9d1c57410b67b48856876b6068b36bd3d1aa32d5/httpd.spec#L6 > > It's an easy fix, I'll have it proposed momentarily. > > > Hi Neal, Thanks for the explanation, most helpful. However, again I'm confused as the spec file referenced above has two references in the changelog to having been rebuilt for RHEL 9 Beta. Again, how can anything that has happened downstream in a RHEL 9 Beta end up back in the upstream Stream product? The fact the two changelog entries are 2 months apart suggest there is little separation between the RHEL 9 Beta and CentOS Stream 9. Clearly the pictorial representation presented of the relationship between Stream and RHEL is not an accurate one.