On Sun, Jan 24, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:04 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > > I made no threat. I pointed out that we provide sources to packages, > > regardless of whether they were GPL or not and any recent > > announcements haven't changed that. > > For "we provide source to packages", this was my understanding: > > 1) RHEL packages are available in SRPM form from a public FTP site. No longer the case. Now only accessible in git. > 2) RHEL EUS packages are available in SRPM form only to subscribers > with EUS subscriptions. Correct. Also included with the Free Developer Program. (Very helpful for ensuring compatibility, IMO.) > 3) RHEL ELS packages are available in SRPM form only to subscribers > with ELS subscriptions. These are not included with the Free Developer Subscription. > When it comes to CentOS Linux, CentOS Linux aligned with 1). It never > aligned with 2) or 3). > > With CentOS Stream, I believe 1) will also disappear. The reference to > git.centos.org seems to be glossing over that git.centos.org does not > contain the RHEL / RHEL EUS / RHEL ELS package sources, but only > includes the *CentOS* sources. And if CentOS Stream continues, then > CentOS Stream sources will receive updates, but if CentOS Linux does > not continue, then it seems doubtful that CentOS Linux sources will > receive updates. Meaning, that by 2022, I expect the RHEL sources to > no longer be available via git.centos.org, and the idea that > "announcements haven't change that" is likely to be false. I think > announcements have definitely changed this. > > But, let's come back to this in a year and see who is right. I agree with your assessment and fear Rocky Linux et al. will have to resort to using "bootleg" SRPMs if/when RH stops publishing the RHEL branched code to CentOS git. (Their statements to date indicate they'll continue publishing these, but I don't count on it.) V/r, James Cassell