> There was a time, not too long ago, that Red Hat found value in the work done by rebuilders like CentOS. We pushed our SRPMs out to git.centos.org in a neat p

> There was a time, not too long ago, that Red Hat found value in the work done by rebuilders like CentOS. We pushed our SRPMs out to git.centos.org in a neat package that made them easy to rebuild; we even de-branded it for them. More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder. > The generally accepted position that these free rebuilds are just funnels churning out RHEL experts and turning into sales just isn’t reality. I wish we lived in that world, but it’s not how it actually plays out. Instead, we’ve found a group of users, many of whom belong to large or very large IT organizations, that want the stability, lifecycle and hardware ecosystem of RHEL without having to actually support the maintainers, engineers, writers, and many more roles that create it. These users also have decided not to use one of the many other Linux distributions. This is a very important section a lot of the comments aren't mentioning. It seems the potential loss of new user flow for them is worth it, as the majority are just using it as a way to avoid paying for RHEL, which was never a free product. > The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. So there shouldn't be *any difference* between this repo and the final RHEL binaries right?, at least on tags/releases. But what about unplanned security patches, are these also built in the CentOS stream repos?