Il 2021-07-08 16:46 Leon Fauster via CentOS ha scritto:> Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you > requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested > such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages > into > EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was > included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! > Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid.For what it is worth, I opened various RH bugzilla enhancement request in the 10+ years of using CentOS. One of the last: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902781 That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless trying to masking it behind the "community" word. My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many roles without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the CentOS community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own internal package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous value of EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me. Regards. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
On 8/7/2021 8:53 ?.?., Gionatan Danti wrote:> That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at > least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. > Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due > to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless > trying to masking it behind the "community" word. > > My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many > roles without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the > CentOS community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own > internal package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous > value of EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me.Exactly so. So, this enormous and invaluable effort should not be wasted and abandoned, but should continue and thrive within full community-driven projects like Rocky Linux. This is what I mean by community effort. CentOS is no more a community-driven project, but others emerge. Yet, currently the only one with true community characteristics is probably Rocky Linux. Cheers, Nick
On 08.07.21 19:53, Gionatan Danti wrote:> Il 2021-07-08 16:46 Leon Fauster via CentOS ha scritto: >> Maybe "we" could fill this gap? Describe this state of EPEL? Did you >> requested such missing packages? From the early on (EL8.0) I requested >> such EPEL packages, some fedora maintainers branched there packages into >> EPEL8. Even a request for a devel package was honored and the rpm was >> included by RH later in 8.1. This is a community, so communicate! >> Everything else is a product in ready state that must be paid. > > For what it is worth, I opened various RH bugzilla enhancement request > in the 10+ years of using CentOS. One of the last: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902781 > > That said, lets face in: current CentOS is not really a community, at > least in the sense that a community can steer the project direction. > Nobody polled for Stream or asked about it. Stream simply happened due > to an unilateral Red Hat decision. *Which is PERFECTLY fine*, unless > trying to masking it behind the "community" word. > > My view is that RH/CentOS would be relatively inadequate for many roles > without the outstanding work done by EPEL and the rest of the CentOS > community, unless you are an hyperscaler who can do its own internal > package additions. Red Hat failing to recognize the enormous value of > EPEL and former CentOS model really baffles me.Good phrased. I see it exactly like this but let me take a dialectic position just for the sake of insights. CentOS Linux (or Rocky Linux) is a downstream rebuild, right? So, the fences are already set. Right now, I am seeing a lot of requests in the Rocky forum, to add new shiny stuff to the distribution and the answer to most of this is (more or less); "we (Rocky) are a 1:1 rebuild of upstream and we can not add new stuff in an arbitrary way". So, when talking about a community then we have different concepts behind it. A RH ecosystem community is not the same as a Debian community. It was never and it will never be the same. I see the RH ecosystem as a hybrid opportunity (perspective from the outside), so not all "directions" can be influenced but there is enough room to contribute to directions especially with Stream now. PS: Do not get me wrong; the whole communication from RH about this "CentOS Change" is catastrophically. -- Leon