On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:12 PM Carl George <carl at redhat.com> wrote: > > I have yet to see an actual problem presented other than "I don't like > the appearance of a downgrade". It's not ideal but it's also not > causing an actual issue. As long as RHEL maintainers add digits after > the %{?dist} macro in the release field, it will be possible to end up > in this situation. CentOS cannot solve this with the current > implementation of modularity in MBS. The right place for this > feedback is upstream MBS. Then you don't build software with "mock". Modularity RPM numbering breaks dependencies unpredictably. In fact, Modularity breaks dependencies, period. It's been a strong reason not to update to RHEL 8 or CentOs 8,along with foolishness like hte multiple overlapping yum repos with the same packages and the recent decision to abandon point releases in favor of using the CentOS users as the beta test group for RHEL without advance notification. The refusal to publishing the "devel" packages used to compile RHEL and CentOS software was similarly unwelcome, though that's been addressed with the "Devel" channel. I do hope that RHEL elects to abandon all three practices for RHEL 9. and CentOS 9. In the interim, it's made it very difficult to recommend RHEL 8 or CentOS 8. There hasn't been anything that demands either of them. Gnutls for Samba was a problem, but the "compat-gnutls34 " packages from sergiomb seem to have addressed that for now. Nico Kadel-Garcia,