Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CentOS 8.0 Is Looking Like It's Still Some Weeks Out

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Why doesn't Red Hat just develop RHEL in a CentOS-friendly way, kinda like how openSUSE has easy packaging options to remove openSUSE trademarks?
    It does.

    Comment


    • #12
      I'm itching to try it out in my home server!...

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by nomadewolf View Post
        I'm itching to try it out in my home server!...
        Apoquel will help with that itching.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
          Why doesn't Red Hat just develop RHEL in a CentOS-friendly way, kinda like how openSUSE has easy packaging options to remove openSUSE trademarks? Both are owned by Red Hat, so it's not like it's the competition or anything.
          Should they fear that CentOS canibalizes RHEL, they could still develop RHEL in a CentOS-friendly way and just delay the CentOS release by one or two months.
          Because IBM hates FOSS!!!

          (sorry, couldn't resist - I couldn't stand debianxfce, but in a way, I do miss *some* of his nonsense)

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

            Because IBM hates FOSS!!!

            (sorry, couldn't resist - I couldn't stand debianxfce, but in a way, I do miss *some* of his nonsense)
            Yeah, I always liked it when he posted stuff and the sources he used completely contradicted him and I will miss that.

            I'm doing my part now that he's gone. I told a wolf to take Apoquel due to the excitement of upgrading the OS on his server possibly causing hot spots and itching. It helps with my dog.

            Have to have some nonsense and fun in life.
            Last edited by skeevy420; 06-18-2019, 02:40 PM.

            Comment


            • #16
              Despite RedHat claiming there is a "firewall" between CentOS policy and RedHat policy, it seems like areas that the CentOS project could improve transparency has either stagnated or regressed.

              The update states they use Koji and Mbox (just the same as Fedora). But unlike Fedora, CentOS only points to the Koji and Mbox source code.

              Fedora has a public facing Koji interface at:
              https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/

              Exact details on each build is provided by that interface. For the CentOS update they give no indication of a public facing interface to track the builds.

              They instead provide generalized statistics, but like the lack of details that would be provided by Koji. Out of 2542 package, 19 haven't been built yet of which 17 failed to build. What are those 17 failing builds? What was the output of the build attempt? What are the 2 other packages pending to build? Where can we track the progress of those 19 packages?

              It would be nice if CentOS could reach feature parity with Fedora in terms of transparency. Instead we keep getting odd responses that read inbetween the lines like "Red Hat wouldn't like it if we did that." Things like the Fedora and EPEL repositories for RPM updates including an update.xml which allows specifying with dnf to install only security updates (and dependencies). CentOS specifies on their mailing list if it is a CESA (security), CEBA (bug) or CEEA (enhancement) update so they have the information to build an update.xml but they just won't provide it.

              For a "Community ENTerprise Operating System," under RedHat they do as little to involve the *Community* as possible. Maybe it should be RentOS (RedHat's ENTerprise Operating System).

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by chilinux View Post
                It would be nice if CentOS could reach feature parity with Fedora in terms of transparency. Instead we keep getting odd responses that read inbetween the lines like "Red Hat wouldn't like it if we did that." Things like the Fedora and EPEL repositories for RPM updates including an update.xml which allows specifying with dnf to install only security updates (and dependencies). CentOS specifies on their mailing list if it is a CESA (security), CEBA (bug) or CEEA (enhancement) update so they have the information to build an update.xml but they just won't provide it.
                You're missing the point. CentOS is unrelated to Fedora - CentOS is related to RHEL. CentOS should never look to Fedora for new features, they should always mirror the upstream RHEL. The whole point of CentOS is to offer the RHEL ABI, so if they deviate from that in any way, the product becomes broken.

                If you want custom features not shipped with upstream RHEL, that's what 3rd party repos are for.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                  You're missing the point. CentOS is unrelated to Fedora - CentOS is related to RHEL. CentOS should never look to Fedora for new features, they should always mirror the upstream RHEL. The whole point of CentOS is to offer the RHEL ABI, so if they deviate from that in any way, the product becomes broken.

                  If you want custom features not shipped with upstream RHEL, that's what 3rd party repos are for.
                  https://access.redhat.com/solutions/10021

                  I want that feature that is provided by upstream RHEL and only works because RHEL does provide update.xml metadata. The instructions provided in that knowledge base article for *RHEL* does not work with CentOS because they refuse to mirror the features of *RHEL*.

                  I point to Fedora not because I expect CentOS to be "related" to Fedora but because it seems clear the Fedora and EPEL are able to provide functionality that brings they closer to feature parity with RHEL and that CentOS by policy avoids that just to make sure their owners don't get pissed.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X