> Am 13.12.2020 um 19:53 schrieb Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu>: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:48 PM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> On 12/11/20 9:56 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >>> And I will repeat that millions of CentOS users found free clone of RHEL >>> trustworthy enough to use it for production, even without "official >>> endorsement". >> >> >> Exactly. That's why it's so weird that those people, today, think that >> CentOS Stream won't be usable, based on their interpretation of the >> official statements from Red Hat. Red Hat's statements weren't taken >> into consideration before, but now they're a sign of doom? >> >> >>> If they ... even allowed ANYONE ELSE that was not employed by Red Hat in >>> 2014 to even come close to learning the secrets of rebuild, no backlash >>> would have happened >> >> >> I'm going to stop you there, because the CentOS maintainers kept that >> process out of public visibility long before Red Hat was ever involved. >> If you think users should know more about the process, then you are >> pointing fingers at the *wrong* people. >> >> I don't want this to become a flame war. So rather than pointing >> fingers, let's focus on the fact that CentOS Stream promises to be >> developed in the open, resolving the problem that you're describing. >> >> Red Hat is fixing the thing you're complaining about. >> >> Red Hat is giving us the thing that has been requested more often, by >> more people, than any other change in CentOS, and the result is that the >> press is full of stories about users being angry, because five people on >> the mailing lists sent a lot of messages. (About half of the traffic in >> the threads on centos and centos-devel comes from five people, and >> various people replying to them.) >> >> > As one of those "five people" I assure you, this is not just a few angry > voices. If you, or anyone at Red Hat believe this is the case, you are very > sadly mistaken. > > Here is the problem: When IBM took over Red Hat, and hence CentOS, these > words were posted on the CentOS Blog: > > > "What does this mean for Red Hat’s contributions to the CentOS project? > > In short, nothing. > > Red Hat always has and will continue to be a champion for open source and > projects like CentOS. IBM is committed to Red Hat’s independence and role > in open source software communities so that we can continue this work > without interruption or changes. > > Our mission, governance, and objectives remain the same. We will continue > to execute the existing project roadmap." > > > > This was *last year*. (CF > https://blog.centos.org/2019/07/ibm-red-hat-and-centos/) Note the last > sentence. The roadmap then had CentOS 8 supported through May 2029. > > The simple fact is Red Hat reneged on a promise that hordes of us believed > and made a lot of plans on. It is now going to be very expensive, and > stress inducing to have to completely rethink everything we have done, and > are doing. > > You damn right we are angry. > > > And there's *a lot* more than five of us. Here is number six. > > > >>> But no, as soon as Oracle started rebuilding RHEL source code Red Hat >>> first made things difficult for everyone to create kernels (source code >>> was not srpms anymore but tar?) >> >> >> You're misinformed. Kernels are still built from SRPM, but the archive >> used is no longer an upstream release with a series of patches. >> >> The reason for the change is not insidious. It's unfortunate that the >> pristine source + patches can't be maintained, I agree, but speaking as >> a developer: maintaining hundreds of patches that touch intersecting >> files and rebasing them all when earlier patches are updated is an >> incredibly difficult and time consuming task. And, if I remember >> correctly, applying all of those patches took almost as long as building >> the kernel. If it takes that long to just prepare the source code, >> that's a major hit to productivity when a developer needs to work on the >> code or build the SRPM to validate changes. >> >> And, ultimately, there's very little value in shipping those patches >> when the vast majority of them are already in the current version of the >> upstream kernel, and they're merely backported to the older release that >> Red Hat supports. It's an entirely different story when distributions >> are shipping patches that they don't push upstream, but that's not >> generally what you see with the kernel package. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > > -- > > *Matt Phelps* > > *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator* > > (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) > > Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian > > > 60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 > email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu > > > cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter > <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube> > | Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos