Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

* Stephan Lachnit: > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about why > Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. They have different branching points from Debian unstable/upstream, so they end up with different versions of the toolchain and core libraries.

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 08:28:33AM +0100, pvane...@debian.org wrote: > > Working at a vendor supporting FC, for a time in the FC support > group, I can only agree with Marco. > > It's a whole different world. The compatibility matrix is king, > anything on there is tested to work, anything not

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 04:25:54PM +, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Hi all, > > maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to be > an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. > > Now what does that have to do with Debian? > > When we look into why

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On 12/10/20 9:06 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:51 AM Geert Stappers > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Paul Wise mailto:p...@debian.org>> wrote: > > > Both of these

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Hi, > On 10 Dec 2020, at 22:25, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Geert Stappers wrote: > >>> Obviously, but I am not aware of any such FC/FCoE hardware (not just the >>> network adapters, but also the storages). >> Acknowledge on that problem. >> Do know that it can and must be solved by

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Obviously, but I am not aware of any such FC/FCoE hardware (not just the > > network adapters, but also the storages). > Acknowledge on that problem. > Do know that it can and must be solved by wallet. > So do talk with your purchase department. No, this is

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

While all of these details of the RHEL and CentOS kernel driver support model are doubtless fascinating, they seem off-topic on debian-devel, which is for the development of an entirely different distribution. Maybe this branch of the thread can be taken to some CentOS mailing list? -- Russ

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:51 AM Geert Stappers wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > > > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > > > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > >

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 6:44 AM Enrico Zini wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:08:36PM +1300, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > > > Streams is currently being used by several very large orgs, and it makes > > sense to make it really a RHEL-next+ project, which is effectively what > it > > > Halfway

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:16:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > > Linux/etc, is there any chance of that happening? Or

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 05:08:36PM +1300, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > Streams is currently being used by several very large orgs, and it makes > sense to make it really a RHEL-next+ project, which is effectively what it I wish you didn't speak in absolutes, because I find it, in view of my

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Paul Wise wrote: > Both of these situations sound like things that should get solved by > rewriting the vendor/O-O-T code and including it in mainline > Linux/etc, is there any chance of that happening? Or alternatively, The Fibre Channel drivers ARE all upstreamed, it's just that the

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 8:22 AM Adrien CLERC wrote: > Le 10/12/2020 à 08:05, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that. > > Fibre Channel users need very specific kernels or else the hardware > > vendors will refuse support (and their vendor drivers

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Le 10/12/2020 à 08:05, Marco d'Itri a écrit : On Dec 10, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: is. Binary compat is mostly a thing of the past in modern Rhel due to containerization. Container tooling in userspace is one of the reasons RH Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that.

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Dec 10, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > is. Binary compat is mostly a thing of the past in modern Rhel due to > containerization. Container tooling in userspace is one of the reasons RH Cool narrative, but the reality is a bit more complex than that. Fibre Channel users need very specific

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:42 AM Stephan Lachnit < stephanlach...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to > be an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. > > Red Hat'er here. CentOS is certainly not dead. This

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:17 PM Marc Haber wrote: > Ubuntu never cared about Debian. That is probably not entirely correct, there are parts of the Ubuntu community, including Canonical employees, that definitely care about Debian, to the point that they are Debian members and fairly core

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 05:02:50PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Two different distributions: two different approaches. Ubuntu support a > small subset of packages in their main distribution (as opposed to > multiverse/universe). Ubuntu packages are often pulled from Debian stable > and

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:25:54 +, Stephan Lachnit wrote: >When we look into why people use CentOS, the reason is pretty simple: it is >(or was) binary-compatible with RHEL, just without the support [2]. >I was reading comments from people that use RHEL on their production, but >CentOS at home

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 04:25:54PM +, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Hi all, > > maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to be > an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. > > Now what does that have to do with Debian? > > When we look into why

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

On 2020-12-09 16:25:54 + (+), Stephan Lachnit wrote: [...] > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about > why Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. It > just doesn't make sense to me. Both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS > provide a more "long term"

Re: CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Hello Stephan, Am 09.12.20 um 17:25 schrieb Stephan Lachnit: > Hi all, > > maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to be > an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. > > Now what does that have to do with Debian? > > When we look into why people

CentOS and Debian/Ubuntu release cycles

Hi all, maybe you already have heard it, CentOS is basically dead now. It used to be an exact RHEL clone, but now it's kind of an RHEL beta [1]. Now what does that have to do with Debian? When we look into why people use CentOS, the reason is pretty simple: it is (or was) binary-compatible