Il 2021-07-08 23:21 J. Adam Craig ha scritto:> Well said. It is worth pointing out also that, while Kurtzer and other > Rocky community leads are devoted to keeping Rocky 1:1 with upstream, > they > are also committed to engaging with the CentOS Stream community > themselves > (if they find a bug in upstream code and they can fix it, Kurtzer and > others have stated multiple times that they will contribute the fix > into > Stream), and to encouraging such engagement among those who desire to > see > improvements with upstream. In other words, if we are uncomfortable > with > the direction Stream is going, the preferred approach is mobilisation > within and engagement with the Stream community to have those changes > realised there, so that they flow into Enterprise Linux and everyone > benefits.While I fully understand & agree on the motivation for keeping Rocky (and other clones) 1:1 with Red Hat, it should be understood that current RHEL packages selection itself is drifting away from small/medium business needs. So the core issue is a more fundamental one: Red Hat, our upstream, is walking away from traditional server needs. So while I wish Rocky all the best (and I am actively using it!), I am looking toward Ubuntu and Debian for new deployments. 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 9/7/2021 1:14 ?.?., Gionatan Danti wrote:> While I fully understand & agree on the motivation for keeping Rocky > (and other clones) 1:1 with Red Hat, it should be understood that > current RHEL packages selection itself is drifting away from > small/medium business needs. So the core issue is a more fundamental > one: Red Hat, our upstream, is walking away from traditional server > needs.IMHO, this is a more fundamental discussion, which is beyond future CentOS versions and alternative RHEL-compatible projects and it deserves a separate thread. In any case, I think that the existence and continuous availability / maintenance of external RHEL / CentOS-compatible repositories probably provides a solution for most use scenarios. Of course, I cannot possibly know all actual needs, so I may be wrong. I need to recognize the fact that it appears there is still a shortage of packages for CentOS 8, even though it is active for quite long already. Maybe this is mainly due to EPEL difficulties. Nick
Once upon a time, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> said:> While I fully understand & agree on the motivation for keeping Rocky > (and other clones) 1:1 with Red Hat, it should be understood that > current RHEL packages selection itself is drifting away from > small/medium business needs. So the core issue is a more fundamental > one: Red Hat, our upstream, is walking away from traditional server > needs.Like any commercial product, RHEL exists for Red Hat's customers... so if you want to see something specific from RHEL, you need to be a customer to give input. -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:14 AM Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote:> While I fully understand & agree on the motivation for keeping Rocky > (and other clones) 1:1 with Red Hat, it should be understood that > current RHEL packages selection itself is drifting away from > small/medium business needs. So the core issue is a more fundamental > one: Red Hat, our upstream, is walking away from traditional server > needs. > > So while I wish Rocky all the best (and I am actively using it!), I am > looking toward Ubuntu and Debian for new deployments. > Regards. >Any extensions beyond rebuilding TUV provided code are why CentOS, and now Rocky, have SIGs. There is an appropriate place for these requests, but it is not in the main project. https://git.rockylinux.org/sig