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.