On 7/9/21 6:06 PM, Mike Rochefort wrote: > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:58 PM Michel Alexandre Salim via CentOS-devel > <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: >> CentOS Stream is basically less than one minor version ahead of RHEL >> (except for when the corresponding RHEL does not exist yet, as for CS9). >> >> I feel like dropping 'rhel' would break a lot of use cases >> unnecessarily. e.g. for the software targeting RHEL you mentioned, we >> want the vendors to be testing on Stream to be ready for the next EL >> minor releases anyway. > > Breakage caused by this was my main concern. I'm neutral on this either > way, I just wanted to know what the broader consensus was in terms of > how strictly to interpret "upstream". > >> From my experience in EPEL, most of the time packages compiled for RHEL >> (which is what EPEL is) work fine in Stream anyway. > > I feel such a change would mostly impact proprietary tools. I've seen > some weird checks that rely on /etc/<distro>-release or perform generic > checks on the os-release file without really looking deeper. Which has > been fine in the latter case because 'rhel' was provided under CentOS. > > An example of the former came up in the forums regarding the Abaqus > software by Dassault Systemes. It checks for a " 8\." pattern in the > redhat-release file during install to know which system it's on, which > wouldn't apply to Stream. Obviously removing the "\." would 'solve' this > scenario, but it's still not a clean or portable method across distros. > I think you want to make stream work so that when people are building for items for RHEL 9 .. it just works in stream as well. I am not sure what benefit we would see in changing it, compared to leaving it alone. And for the record .. CentOS Stream is infinitely more like RHEL than Fedora.