On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 7:26 PM 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? > > Maybe it's just semantics, or a naming thing, but there are irresolvable > inconsistencies between the pictorial representation presented and the > SPEC file changelog entries. > The RHEL 9 Beta is largely based on CentOS Stream 9 content at the end of August. You can tell because most packages have the changelog entry for the mass build to add IMA signatures from the beginning of August with a few others ending at mid to late August. There are some packages that were backported from c9s to the beta, and you can tell because they have the DistTag "el9_b", and their changelog entries reach up to the end of September. People have been fixing things in CentOS Stream 9 based on bugs found in the RHEL 9 Beta, but I agree the feedback loop is pretty bad for the Beta still. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!