Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On 21/06/20 1:23 pm, John Pierce wrote: but the build process should be the same, no?I can't believe RH would use a completely different build process for the release than for the beta/development stuff. The packages still have to be built as a whole, they need to go through QA testing, isos need to be built and tested. The only thing that I can think of that Stream benefits this process is to help Red Hat find the odd bug here and there before their final release (after which CentOS still has to do everything listed above). Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
but the build process should be the same, no?I can't believe RH would use a completely different build process for the release than for the beta/development stuff. On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:36 PM Peter wrote: > On 21/06/20 9:15 am, John Pierce wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:08 AM Tom Bishop wrote: > > > >> +1 Streams is not for a production workload, if I wanted that I can > easily > >> deploy an Arch instance if I want or need a rolling distro (it's not > Redhat > >> etc but still). If Redhat wanted CentOS to be released near the same > time > >> line they could help make that happen, although that wouldn't be in > there > >> best financial interest. > > > > > > think of it this way ... when the rolling beta is done, the final release > > will be done with no further delay. > > No, Stream and the core OS are built form a completely separate set of > sources. I highly doubt that we could use binaries built from stream to > populate the final release. The whole thing has to be rebuilt for the > final release regardless of the status of Stream. > > > Peter > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- -john r pierce recycling used bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On 21/06/20 9:15 am, John Pierce wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:08 AM Tom Bishop wrote: +1 Streams is not for a production workload, if I wanted that I can easily deploy an Arch instance if I want or need a rolling distro (it's not Redhat etc but still). If Redhat wanted CentOS to be released near the same time line they could help make that happen, although that wouldn't be in there best financial interest. think of it this way ... when the rolling beta is done, the final release will be done with no further delay. No, Stream and the core OS are built form a completely separate set of sources. I highly doubt that we could use binaries built from stream to populate the final release. The whole thing has to be rebuilt for the final release regardless of the status of Stream. Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:08 AM Tom Bishop wrote: > +1 Streams is not for a production workload, if I wanted that I can easily > deploy an Arch instance if I want or need a rolling distro (it's not Redhat > etc but still). If Redhat wanted CentOS to be released near the same time > line they could help make that happen, although that wouldn't be in there > best financial interest. think of it this way ... when the rolling beta is done, the final release will be done with no further delay. -- -john r pierce recycling used bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:41 AM Peter wrote: > > This is all well and good, but I don't think that CentOS was ever meant > to be a testing ground for RHEL. As the name actually stands for it is > a "Community Enterprise OS" and it has always been a rebuild of the RHEL > sources. Stream is basically RHEL Rolling Beta, and that can hardly be > considered "Enterprise". > > I and I think many others find this focus on Stream to be rather > distressing, and it does have the appearance to be taking focus away > from the core OS. This is further evidenced by the long wait times for > release. > I have to shake my head at this. You're telling the guy who builds, and had built, CentOS for years what the project is and where it is going? He told you what Stream is and what it will be used for already. It is the new future of the OS. That's it. You're arguing semantics about having Enterprise in the name, while ignoring that it's still Enterprise Linux, even if it's not the final end product because it is the future source project of Enterprise Linux. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 5:41 AM Peter wrote: > On 20/06/20 3:29 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > How is this going to be fixed .. Welcome to CentOS Stream > > > > Stream will be , once it is fully implemented, the ACTUAL development of > > RHEL the 'next point release' on git.centos.org in the open. > > So basically stream is a testing ground for RHEL. It's not actually a > rebuild of RHEL since it's what comes *before* RHEL, not after. > > > It will be a rolling distro that is GOING to be the Source Code used for > > next RHEL point release. > > > > Therefore, we will have all package as they are being worked on by the > > RHEL Engineers .. and you can see it happen in progress. You can also > > use it however you want. There will be no delay i this at all. It will > > be constantly moving. There will be no 500 pacakges drop or delays. > > This is all well and good, but I don't think that CentOS was ever meant > to be a testing ground for RHEL. As the name actually stands for it is > a "Community Enterprise OS" and it has always been a rebuild of the RHEL > sources. Stream is basically RHEL Rolling Beta, and that can hardly be > considered "Enterprise". > > I and I think many others find this focus on Stream to be rather > distressing, and it does have the appearance to be taking focus away > from the core OS. This is further evidenced by the long wait times for > release. > > The way I see it, Red Hat pays the bills now, Red Hat employs the core > team, and Red Hat wants a RHEL Beta platform, so that is what they have > decreed that CentOS will become. Now I could be wrong here because I > certainly don't have any inside information about this, but it seems > from teh outside looking in that any progress on the core OS is > incidental and time spent on it has to be time leftover after any work > is done on Stream. > > Now I don't have an issue with Stream, in fact I think taht Stream can > be beneficial to CentOS, but it hsould not be at the expense of the core > OS, imo. The core OS should take priority over any other CentOS > project, whether it be streams, or SIGs or anything else, because we > can't really have a Community Enterprise OS without the core OS. > > > Peter > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos +1 Streams is not for a production workload, if I wanted that I can easily deploy an Arch instance if I want or need a rolling distro (it's not Redhat etc but still). If Redhat wanted CentOS to be released near the same time line they could help make that happen, although that wouldn't be in there best financial interest. Now maybe there will be a way to set streams up to only get security updates and then when they release the .1 release you could update and have everything update. If something like that could be worked out that would work for me but I would only want security updates in between and I'm not sure if that is possible. > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On 20/06/20 10:50 pm, Peter wrote: On 20/06/20 3:50 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: 8.0 140 8.1 71 8.2 48 So the delays for 8 are significantly longer than they ever were for 7. I should also say that the time lag for each point release of 8 seems to be dropping exponentially. Hopefully this means that 8.3 will have a significantly shorter delay and we will be in the range of less than 30 days for that, if so I can accept the delays up to this point. Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On 20/06/20 3:50 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: Your dates are significantly off Wikipedia has a delay listed in a table: It is, for CentOS-7, For example: 7.0 27 7.1 26 7.2 25 7.3 39 7.4 43 7.5 31 7.6 34 7.7 42 7.8 28 For 6 .. since 6.2, it has bee3n between 10 and 18 days. For 8: 8.0 140 8.1 71 8.2 48 So the delays for 8 are significantly longer than they ever were for 7. And EL8 is exponentially harder with an entirely new build system and the requirement to build modules. But it seems like every major release has had reasons to be exponentially harder than the last. With 7 it was the shift to using the git sources instead of the SRPMS that were previously provided by Red Hat, thereby necessitating an entirely new build system, plus the change to systemd and the introduction of a new point release numbering scheme, not to mention the move to entirely new infrastructure because of the change to Red Hat sponsorship. So given those I find it hard to believe that the changes in 8 are so much different as to have had such longer delays than 7. I'd also like to point out something else, from: https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8.x#Current_Timeline_8.2.2004 It would appear that the package build was completed on the 4th of May, why didn't we get a CR repo dump this time around so that CentOS users wouldn't have to wait another month before getting critical updates? Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
On 20/06/20 3:29 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: How is this going to be fixed .. Welcome to CentOS Stream Stream will be , once it is fully implemented, the ACTUAL development of RHEL the 'next point release' on git.centos.org in the open. So basically stream is a testing ground for RHEL. It's not actually a rebuild of RHEL since it's what comes *before* RHEL, not after. It will be a rolling distro that is GOING to be the Source Code used for next RHEL point release. Therefore, we will have all package as they are being worked on by the RHEL Engineers .. and you can see it happen in progress. You can also use it however you want. There will be no delay i this at all. It will be constantly moving. There will be no 500 pacakges drop or delays. This is all well and good, but I don't think that CentOS was ever meant to be a testing ground for RHEL. As the name actually stands for it is a "Community Enterprise OS" and it has always been a rebuild of the RHEL sources. Stream is basically RHEL Rolling Beta, and that can hardly be considered "Enterprise". I and I think many others find this focus on Stream to be rather distressing, and it does have the appearance to be taking focus away from the core OS. This is further evidenced by the long wait times for release. The way I see it, Red Hat pays the bills now, Red Hat employs the core team, and Red Hat wants a RHEL Beta platform, so that is what they have decreed that CentOS will become. Now I could be wrong here because I certainly don't have any inside information about this, but it seems from teh outside looking in that any progress on the core OS is incidental and time spent on it has to be time leftover after any work is done on Stream. Now I don't have an issue with Stream, in fact I think taht Stream can be beneficial to CentOS, but it hsould not be at the expense of the core OS, imo. The core OS should take priority over any other CentOS project, whether it be streams, or SIGs or anything else, because we can't really have a Community Enterprise OS without the core OS. Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Blog article about the state of CentOS
Il 19/06/20 17:15, Johnny Hughes ha scritto: On 6/17/20 12:11 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote: Hi Johnny, thank you for your and all centos team works. Many of us know how much work is needed for building new releases and maintaining C6 and C7, plus CentOS Stream and modules (Appstream). This is a huge work for a small team. Again thank you. For me OL is not an alternative. As reported in my previous message I'm not worried about how much time is required to build the new (major/minor) release, it will be ready when it will be. My major concern is about the "security update blackout" that take long as the build process. I would ask to you: 1. Why all security fix are stopped when a new release building process is started? There is a way or possibility to run the two process in parallel? So .. when a point release happens .. say 7.8 to 7.9 (just an example .. could be 6.10 to 6.11 or 8.1 to 8.2, etc) Those packages are built against EACH other, one at a time. Once we build the new gcc, new kernel, and new glibc (if they are reqruies) .. then all the OTHER updated packages are built against those new libraries.. they therefore need those NEW shared libraries to run. So the new files have to be released as a set, not individually. 2. When a build process is started and a security fix released there is a way for your team to "suspend" the building process, release security updates (for 6/7.x or 8.1) and resume the builing process? I think that many users (included me) will have less disappointment having security updates instead of receiving a "signal lost" when building process takes its way. It makes no difference if the update is a bugfix update or a security update. If 500 packages get released at the same time, they have to be built in a specific order in order to match how they were built in RHEL. We have to build them, one at a time, then individually test them to make sure they LINK against the proper new libraries and not older libraries. Also any UPDATES released to the new version , after RHEL does the point release (so updates FOR 7.9 after the 7.9 release) need to wait until the 7.9 release is done and tested to be built .. as they were built against RHEL 7.9 and not RHEL 7.8 So, you can't just build items out of order at point release time. We have to build the 500 packages , in a specific order. We then have to test the packages, and usually rebuild several of them again for bad links, etc. This is the process that takes time .. testing and getting the proper links to the proper shared libraries. If we quickly release bad files .. then we have to rebuild them and re-release them with different versions that RHEL has (because they have to replace our previuosly BAD release). That is not good for anyone. Hopefully this answers your question. Hi Johnny, thank you for your answer. This is more clear to me now. Alessandro. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
