On Sun, 5 Dec 2021, 01:26 Phil Perry, <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > On 04/12/2021 23:30, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:50 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:21 PM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > RHEL 9 Beta was built from CentOS Stream 9. We had a soft opening > > back in April, and RHEL 9 work has been flowing through CentOS Stream > > 9. It takes a while to create any RHEL release, Beta or otherwise, so > > having 2 commits months apart reference 9 Beta isn't uncommon. > > > >>> Clearly the pictorial representation presented of the relationship > >>> between Stream and RHEL is not an accurate one. > > > > It is accurate. Can you help me understand what is confusing? It > > shows CentOS Stream 9 being a continuously delivered OS, with RHEL > > releases being derived from it. In this case, work went into CentOS 9 > > Stream and a while later it showed up in 9 Beta. > > > > The pictorial representation shows RHEL 9 Beta (or any RHEL release for > that matter) being forks off the continuously delivered CentOS Stream. > There is no feedback loop shown whereby once forked, anything that > happens in RHEL 9 Beta can end up back in Stream, as Stream has moved on > since then. > > As you say, this fork happened back in April. The httpd SPEC file shows > a rebuild for RHEL 9 Beta on April 16th, and again on June 16th. How can > the rebuild for RHEL 9 Beta on Jun 16th (or at least the changelog > entry) that occurred 2 months _after_ the fork end up back in Stream? > Their paths diverged (at least) 2 months previously, never to meet again > according to the pictorial representation? > The confusion most likely comes from the misunderstanding, what does branching event represents for a RHEL point release. The branching of a RHEL point release from CentOS Stream happens at the _end_ of the development cycle for that RHEL release, not at the start of it. So development of RHEL 9 Beta started in April in CentOS Stream after RHEL 9 Alpha branch was created. Then for some time development of Beta (including mass rebuilds) happened in the CentOS Stream because they were the same thing, until Beta got ready to be freezed. Then Beta was branched and freezed while CentOS Stream became the RHEL 9.0.0 development. You can check also the diagram in https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/centos-stream-is-continuous-delivery/ which shows the same concept but from a slightly different angle. SPEC file changelog entries. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel -- Aleksandra Fedorova bookwar on IRC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20211205/49ace0b1/attachment-0002.html>