On Sat, Dec 4, 2021, 8:32 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:31 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> 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. > > > > There are cases, such as embargoed CVEs, where RHEL gets work first, > > but drawing diagrams for every possible scenario isn't really helpful. > > > > > So far, I haven't seen any updates released for RHEL 9 beta, but any > > > updates would be released from auto-rebuilds for c9s to the rhel9.0 > > > branch internally, most likely. > > > > > > I hope there is a refresh soon, because the current media calls itself > > > beta0, which implies beta1 or beta2 composes will exist. > > > > RHEL major releases have two different kinds of Betas. There is the > > public beta, which is accessible via FTP by anyone, and there is a > > customer Beta program for RHEL customers that have subscriptions. We > > do not refresh the public Beta. > > > > As a reminder, those interested in any possible updates to RHEL 9 > > before the GA can sign up for a free Developer subscription and have > > access to the Beta channels on CDN. > > > > My information is based on the Red Hat subscription portal, not the > FTP. I didn't even know you bothered to release it on the Red Hat FTP. > Ack. My assumption is that most on the list aren't using the Customer Beta so I was getting ahead of future questions. For what it's worth, any 9 Beta updates are much more accessible than previous RHEL major releases. They simply go to the regular beta channels, which was not previously the case. josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20211205/ef1746ac/attachment-0002.html>