Am 05.12.21 um 01:26 schrieb Phil Perry: > 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. > I find this illustration interesting (starting at second 1355) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oktwEpjO38M&t=1355s -- Leon