3 ms·

I understand the desire to stick with the 10yrs of updates model, but it seems outdated with how fast things evolve. I am still waiting for Redhat to bring some

by GNOMES 5y ago

I understand the desire to stick with the 10yrs of updates model, but it seems outdated with how fast things evolve. I am still waiting for Redhat to bring some details on how Stream will work long term. We need to know what packages will be unstable. People seem to be held up that Redhat releases will be taken from Stream, making it a "beta" of things to come instead of a free RH. I personally see this no different than Fedora > CentOS release cycle. I welcome newer features hitting our enterprise boxes sooner than later. I have read that it's also not a true rolling release, and instead will have minor stop gap channel releases along the way. Unless there is another big shake up like init vs systemD, it will be excellent to have an enterprise grade rolling release option for long lived (non-cattle) servers. Updating our fleet from 5 to 6, 6 to 7 was painful... Currently moved most of my Dev servers to Stream, and I am excluding a few packages from rolling with DNF-Automatic. Will this stay supported?

dralley 5y ago
CentOS Stream is rolling between minor releases, not between major releases. So e.g. a CentOS Stream 8 system won't roll over to CentOS Stream 9. I do believe they're working on making major version upgrades easier, but they would still not be automatic. None of the packages should be "unstable" barring any major bugs, (or maybe proprietary kernel modules that expect a very specific kernel version).
cpach 5y ago
IMHO: For those who want more frequent upgrades, then I would say a container-based solution is a good fit. Then the container don’t need to care if the underlying host has very old packages.