4 ms·

I don't quite understand "provisioning and longevity issues, Rocky is winning." As a user of CentOS looking for a replacement, Alma and Rocky should be 100% id

by awill 4y ago

I don't quite understand "provisioning and longevity issues, Rocky is winning." As a user of CentOS looking for a replacement, Alma and Rocky should be 100% identical. The _only_ difference is delay after RHEL launches.

CamJN 4y ago
Alma is not as RHEL-compatible as rocky, they use subkeys for signing whereas rocky just uses their signing keys. This is enough that I can’t use alma for building my rpm’s using mock.
- awill 4y ago
  I'd love to see a technical writeup of the differences. If Rocky genuinely were better, a 5-week delay vs Alma would probably be ok, at least for the original release, as long as the dot releases are faster. No one wants security vulnerabilities delayed by 5 weeks.
- jaboutboul 4y ago
  This is not correct. The issue is trying to use Alma 8’s mock chroot on a CentOS 7 host. The (older) versions of yum and rpm there don’t support subkeys. There is a Red Hat BZ issue here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Do RHEL/Rocky/CentOS Stream 8's mock chroots work on CentOS 7 hosts? If so, then this does seem like a legitimate binary incompatibility.
    - mroche 4y ago
      That is not what binary compatibility means when talking about RHEL. It refers to the actual package ABIs and the compatibility levels we assign them: https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility This would be closer to a bug-for-bug compatibility issue, as a result of an implementation change on the infra side of things. It's not due to the OS which is bug-for-bug compatible with its origin, RHEL 8. While it would be nice if EL7 stacks are considered by the rebuild distributions, it's not a requirement and they are free to use features supported by the platforms they're building.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gnufx 4y ago
  Well, I can do a mock -r almalinux-8-x86_64 bootstrap build on RHEL7. (I can't remember whether there are currently any problems maintaining for RHEL8 on RHEL7, but it has been impossible to maintain packages for RHEL N+1 on RHEL N in the past. I just moved to a RHEL8 VM rather than prat about with 7 more.)

by awill 4y ago

CamJN 4y ago

Alma is not as RHEL-compatible as rocky, they use subkeys for signing whereas rocky just uses their signing keys. This is enough that I can’t use alma for building my rpm’s using mock.

awill 4y ago
I'd love to see a technical writeup of the differences. If Rocky genuinely were better, a 5-week delay vs Alma would probably be ok, at least for the original release, as long as the dot releases are faster. No one wants security vulnerabilities delayed by 5 weeks.
jaboutboul 4y ago
This is not correct. The issue is trying to use Alma 8’s mock chroot on a CentOS 7 host. The (older) versions of yum and rpm there don’t support subkeys. There is a Red Hat BZ issue here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017069
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Do RHEL/Rocky/CentOS Stream 8's mock chroots work on CentOS 7 hosts? If so, then this does seem like a legitimate binary incompatibility.
  - mroche 4y ago
    That is not what binary compatibility means when talking about RHEL. It refers to the actual package ABIs and the compatibility levels we assign them: https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel9-abi-compatibility This would be closer to a bug-for-bug compatibility issue, as a result of an implementation change on the infra side of things. It's not due to the OS which is bug-for-bug compatible with its origin, RHEL 8. While it would be nice if EL7 stacks are considered by the rebuild distributions, it's not a requirement and they are free to use features supported by the platforms they're building.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gnufx 4y ago
Well, I can do a mock -r almalinux-8-x86_64 bootstrap build on RHEL7. (I can't remember whether there are currently any problems maintaining for RHEL8 on RHEL7, but it has been impossible to maintain packages for RHEL N+1 on RHEL N in the past. I just moved to a RHEL8 VM rather than prat about with 7 more.)