You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> on 2021/06/22 07:41:45 UTC
[DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
All,
With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4 (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Sven Vogel <sv...@apache.org>.
Maybe Rocky is a good replacement for CentOS. We will see. We dont
have so much choices. For me its important to support the Commercial
RHEL one besides the Community.
Thanks and
Cheers,
Sven Vogel
Apache CloudStack PMC member
On Wednesday, 06/23/2021 at 06:40 David Jumani wrote:
+1
I think that since Cenots8 / Rocky / Alma are binary compatible it
would be sufficient to support Rocky since it is looking like the go
to alternative, and supporting any one would pretty much be supporting
the other
About dropping support, I'm for supporting it until EOL this year
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
All,
With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
(https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Sven Vogel <sv...@apache.org>.
Maybe Rocky is a good replacement for CentOS. We will see. We dont
have so much choices. For me its important to support the Commercial
RHEL one besides the Community.
Thanks and
Cheers,
Sven Vogel
Apache CloudStack PMC member
On Wednesday, 06/23/2021 at 06:40 David Jumani wrote:
+1
I think that since Cenots8 / Rocky / Alma are binary compatible it
would be sufficient to support Rocky since it is looking like the go
to alternative, and supporting any one would pretty much be supporting
the other
About dropping support, I'm for supporting it until EOL this year
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org ; users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
All,
With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
(https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by David Jumani <Da...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
I think that since Cenots8 / Rocky / Alma are binary compatible it would be sufficient to support Rocky since it is looking like the go to alternative, and supporting any one would pretty much be supporting the other
About dropping support, I'm for supporting it until EOL this year
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
All,
With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4 (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by David Jumani <Da...@shapeblue.com>.
+1
I think that since Cenots8 / Rocky / Alma are binary compatible it would be sufficient to support Rocky since it is looking like the go to alternative, and supporting any one would pretty much be supporting the other
About dropping support, I'm for supporting it until EOL this year
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
All,
With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4 (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
Rohit,
Agreed. on the el8 rename for the repos. I'd recommend keeping a
symlink back to centos just for folks running automated scripts and such
downstream. Make sure the rsync daemon still works for both, too.
Do you know how difficult it would be to change the CI/CD build
processes to point to point to either multiple OSes or change to another
OS for testing? E.g. Don't actually switch off of CentOS 8 quite yet,
but be able to test alternatives before the end of the year.
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
On 6/28/21 6:02 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
>
> * CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
> * We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
> * The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
>
> As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ________________________________
> From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
>
> Regards,
> Lucian
>
>
>
>
> On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>> Nux,
>> Also agree regarding EL8.
>>
>> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
>> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
>> cost.
>> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
>> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
>> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
>> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
>> servers or anything like that?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>>> @nux
>>>
>>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>>> any
>>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>>
>>> Agree
>>>
>>> __
>>>
>>> Sven Vogel
>>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>>
>>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>>
>>> Geschäftsführer:
>>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>>
>>> Support:
>>> +49 341 42649 555
>>>
>>> Zertifiziert nach:
>>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>>
>>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>>
>>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>>
>>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>>
>>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>>> "oiled" better.
>>>
>>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>>
>>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>> Nux,
>>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>>> clone
>>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>>> RHEL
>>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just one example:
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>>> pages)
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>>
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>>> reverted change)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>>> CentOS
>>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>>> Nathan,
>>>>>
>>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>>> just
>>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>>> should
>>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>>> tell:
>>>>>> "a
>>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>>> CTO
>>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> point releases.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by David Jumani <Da...@shapeblue.com>.
Good idea Rohit, +1 on creating symlinks for el7, el8
I've also created a PR to support binary compatible variants of RHEL8. I'd appreciate feedback / testing from the community
I've tested it agianst Rocky & Alma and it seems to work just like C8 does
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5158
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:32 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
* CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
* We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
* The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
Regards.
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
Regards,
Lucian
On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Also agree regarding EL8.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
> cost.
> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>
> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
> servers or anything like that?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>> @nux
>>
>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>> any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>
>> Agree
>>
>> __
>>
>> Sven Vogel
>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>
>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>
>> Support:
>> +49 341 42649 555
>>
>> Zertifiziert nach:
>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>
>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>
>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>
>>
>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>
>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>
>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>> "oiled" better.
>>
>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>
>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> Nux,
>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>> clone
>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>> RHEL
>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just one example:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>
>>>
>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>> pages)
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>> reverted change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>> CentOS
>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>> Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>> just
>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>
>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>> should
>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>> tell:
>>>>> "a
>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>> CTO
>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>> to
>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>> you
>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>> have
>>>>> point releases.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
Rohit,
Agreed. on the el8 rename for the repos. I'd recommend keeping a
symlink back to centos just for folks running automated scripts and such
downstream. Make sure the rsync daemon still works for both, too.
Do you know how difficult it would be to change the CI/CD build
processes to point to point to either multiple OSes or change to another
OS for testing? E.g. Don't actually switch off of CentOS 8 quite yet,
but be able to test alternatives before the end of the year.
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
On 6/28/21 6:02 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
>
> * CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
> * We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
> * The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
>
> As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ________________________________
> From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
>
> Regards,
> Lucian
>
>
>
>
> On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>> Nux,
>> Also agree regarding EL8.
>>
>> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
>> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
>> cost.
>> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
>> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
>> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
>> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
>> servers or anything like that?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>>> @nux
>>>
>>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>>> any
>>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>>
>>> Agree
>>>
>>> __
>>>
>>> Sven Vogel
>>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>>
>>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>>
>>> Geschäftsführer:
>>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>>
>>> Support:
>>> +49 341 42649 555
>>>
>>> Zertifiziert nach:
>>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>>
>>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>>
>>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>>
>>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>>
>>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>>> "oiled" better.
>>>
>>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>>
>>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>> Nux,
>>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>>> clone
>>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>>> RHEL
>>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just one example:
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>>> pages)
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>>
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>>> reverted change)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>>> CentOS
>>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>>> Nathan,
>>>>>
>>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>>> just
>>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>>> should
>>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>>> tell:
>>>>>> "a
>>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>>> CTO
>>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> point releases.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by David Jumani <Da...@shapeblue.com>.
Good idea Rohit, +1 on creating symlinks for el7, el8
I've also created a PR to support binary compatible variants of RHEL8. I'd appreciate feedback / testing from the community
I've tested it agianst Rocky & Alma and it seems to work just like C8 does
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5158
________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:32 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>; users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
* CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
* We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
* The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
Regards.
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
Regards,
Lucian
On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Also agree regarding EL8.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
> cost.
> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>
> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
> servers or anything like that?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>> @nux
>>
>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>> any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>
>> Agree
>>
>> __
>>
>> Sven Vogel
>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>
>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>
>> Support:
>> +49 341 42649 555
>>
>> Zertifiziert nach:
>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>
>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>
>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>
>>
>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>
>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>
>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>> "oiled" better.
>>
>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>
>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> Nux,
>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>> clone
>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>> RHEL
>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just one example:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>
>>>
>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>> pages)
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>> reverted change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>> CentOS
>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>> Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>> just
>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>
>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>> should
>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>> tell:
>>>>> "a
>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>> CTO
>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>> to
>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>> you
>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>> have
>>>>> point releases.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
* CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
* We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
* The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
Regards.
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
Regards,
Lucian
On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Also agree regarding EL8.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
> cost.
> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>
> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
> servers or anything like that?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>> @nux
>>
>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>> any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>
>> Agree
>>
>> __
>>
>> Sven Vogel
>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>
>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>
>> Support:
>> +49 341 42649 555
>>
>> Zertifiziert nach:
>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>
>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>
>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>
>>
>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>
>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>
>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>> "oiled" better.
>>
>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>
>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> Nux,
>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>> clone
>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>> RHEL
>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just one example:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>
>>>
>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>> pages)
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>> reverted change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>> CentOS
>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>> Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>> just
>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>
>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>> should
>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>> tell:
>>>>> "a
>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>> CTO
>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>> to
>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>> you
>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>> have
>>>>> point releases.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Great thanks all for the discussion, so what we mostly agree on are:
* CentOS8, Rocky Linux 8 and other initiatives may all be binary compatible
* We can host all el8 repos which these distros may use
* The community may help validate the CloudStack el8 pkgs among one or more clear winner with time
As an immediate action, let's us publish all "centos8" or "rocky8" package repos under generic "el8" repos? For example, http://download.cloudstack.org/testing/nightly/latest/ we can add symlink or rename dirs as "el8", "el7".
Regards.
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 21:12
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
Regards,
Lucian
On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Also agree regarding EL8.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
> cost.
> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>
> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
> servers or anything like that?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>> @nux
>>
>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>> any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>
>> Agree
>>
>> __
>>
>> Sven Vogel
>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>
>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>> www.ewerk.com<http://www.ewerk.com>
>>
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>
>> Support:
>> +49 341 42649 555
>>
>> Zertifiziert nach:
>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>
>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>
>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>
>>
>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>
>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>
>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>> "oiled" better.
>>
>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>
>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> Nux,
>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>> clone
>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>> RHEL
>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just one example:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>
>>>
>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>> pages)
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>> reverted change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>> CentOS
>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>> Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>> just
>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>
>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>> should
>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>> tell:
>>>>> "a
>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>> CTO
>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>> to
>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>> you
>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>> have
>>>>> point releases.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
That's a very good suggestion, I'm sure we can sort out something.
Regards,
Lucian
On 2021-06-24 14:40, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Also agree regarding EL8.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
> where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
> cost.
> (https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
>
> I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
> project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
> non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
> servers or anything like that?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
>> @nux
>>
>> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include
>> any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>>
>> Agree
>>
>> __
>>
>> Sven Vogel
>> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>>
>> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
>> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
>> P +49 341 42649 - 99
>> F +49 341 42649 - 98
>> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
>> www.ewerk.com
>>
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
>> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>>
>> Support:
>> +49 341 42649 555
>>
>> Zertifiziert nach:
>> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
>> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
>> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>>
>> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>>
>> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> |
>> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> |
>> Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> |
>> Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> |
>> Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>>
>>
>> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>>
>> Disclaimer Privacy:
>> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien)
>> ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht
>> der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
>> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
>> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen
>> Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem
>> System. Vielen Dank.
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are
>> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you
>> should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>> (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
>> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
>> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>>
>> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
>> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
>> "oiled" better.
>>
>> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
>> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>>
>> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
>> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> Nux,
>>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other
>>> clone
>>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically
>>> RHEL
>>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just one example:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>>
>>>
>>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>>> pages)
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>>
>>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>>> reverted change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where
>>> CentOS
>>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>>> Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times,
>>>> just
>>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>>
>>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>>> should
>>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to
>>>>> tell:
>>>>> "a
>>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>>> CTO
>>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>>> to
>>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>>> (E.g.
>>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>>> you
>>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>>> have
>>>>> point releases.
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
Nux,
Also agree regarding EL8.
I wonder if it is possible to build on a RHEL "development" license
where builds and smoke tests and such can be done without licensing
cost.
(https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux,
https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions)
I'm not a lawyer and the terms seem murky as to how an Open-Source
project like CloudStack would interact with those terms, even in a
non-production sense. Do any other ASF projects use RHEL for build/test
servers or anything like that?
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
On 6/24/21 8:17 AM, Sven Vogel wrote:
> @nux
>
> „Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
>
> Agree
>
> __
>
> Sven Vogel
> Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
>
> EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
> P +49 341 42649 - 99
> F +49 341 42649 - 98
> S.Vogel@ewerk.com
> www.ewerk.com
>
> Geschäftsführer:
> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
>
> Support:
> +49 341 42649 555
>
> Zertifiziert nach:
> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
> DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
>
> ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
>
> EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> | Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> | Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
>
>
> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>
> Disclaimer Privacy:
> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen Dank.
>
> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
>
> ________________________________
> Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
> An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
> I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
> "oiled" better.
>
> What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
> Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
>
> Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
> of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
>
>
>
> On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>> Nux,
>> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
>> as they should be binary compatible.
>>
>> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
>> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
>> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
>> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
>> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>>
>>
>> Just one example:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>>
>>
>> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
>> pages)
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>>
>>
>>
>> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>>
>>
>>
>> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
>> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>>
>> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
>> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
>> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
>> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
>> reverted change)
>>
>>
>> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
>> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
>> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>>
>>
>> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
>> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
>> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
>> reverted commits like the one above.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Nathan McGarvey
>>
>>
>> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>>> Nathan,
>>>
>>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
>>> like old CentOS did.
>>>
>>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>>> should
>>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell:
>>>> "a
>>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>>> CTO
>>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>>> to
>>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>>> think
>>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>>> (E.g.
>>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>>> you
>>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>>> have
>>>> point releases.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Sven Vogel <S....@ewerk.com>.
@nux
„Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.“
Agree
__
Sven Vogel
Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure
EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 99
F +49 341 42649 - 98
S.Vogel@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com
Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Tassilo Möschke
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065
Support:
+49 341 42649 555
Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018
ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed
EWERK-Blog<https://blog.ewerk.com/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ewerk-group> | Xing<https://www.xing.com/company/ewerk> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/EWERK_Group> | Facebook<https://de-de.facebook.com/EWERK.Group/>
Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen Dank.
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
________________________________
Von: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Gesendet: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:57:24 PM
An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
"oiled" better.
What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
> as they should be binary compatible.
>
> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>
>
> Just one example:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>
>
> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
> pages)
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
> reverted change)
>
>
> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>
>
> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
> reverted commits like the one above.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>> Nathan,
>>
>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
>> like old CentOS did.
>>
>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>> should
>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell:
>>> "a
>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>> CTO
>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>> to
>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>> think
>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>> (E.g.
>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>> you
>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>> have
>>> point releases.
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
Point taken. Good find with gdm, wonder if there are others.
I'm hoping this kind of problems disappear in time as the machine gets
"oiled" better.
What I wanted to underline is that the situation is sort of like this:
Updates -> QA -> Stream -> RHEL
Might be then worth going for supporting "EL8" and by that include any
of Rocky, Alma, OtherClone etc.
On 2021-06-23 19:03, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> Nux,
> Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
> as they should be binary compatible.
>
> I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
> packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
> CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
> CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
> are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
>
>
> Just one example:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
>
>
> RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata
> pages)
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
>
>
>
> CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
> previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
>
> gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
> gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
> gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
> gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
> reverted change)
>
>
> Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
> 8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
> skipped the broken versions entirely.
>
>
> The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
> good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
> literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
> reverted commits like the one above.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
> On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
>> Nathan,
>>
>> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
>> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
>> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
>> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
>> like old CentOS did.
>>
>> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you
>> should
>> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
>> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell:
>>> "a
>>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat
>>> CTO
>>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due
>>> to
>>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't
>>> think
>>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
>>> (E.g.
>>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under
>>> you
>>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian
>>> have
>>> point releases.
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
Nux,
Overall, I agree that it should be possible to use any other clone
as they should be binary compatible.
I don't quite understand your "pass through QA" and "basically RHEL
packages" comment. There are already instances of breaking changes in
CentOS 8 Stream that didn't make it into RHEL or CentOS non-stream.
CentOS Stream is the only one where you *don't* know exactly what you
are getting since it is no longer downstream of RHEL:
Just one example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911827
RHEL 8 versions published (at least that I could find on their errata pages)
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm <-- not broken
CentOS 8 (not stream) versions line up with RHEL as expected:
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.src.rpm 2020-09-17 17:27 <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.src.rpm 2021-01-28 22:09 <-- not broken
CentOS 8 Stream versions (hard to track down since all mirrors wipe
previous versions now, but this is what I gathered):
gdm-3.28.3-34.el8.x86_64.rpm 18-Sep-2020 00:27 <-- not broken
gdm-3.28.3-35.el8.x86_64.rpm 02-Dec-2020 23:33 <-- breaking change
gdm-3.28.3-37.el8.x86_64.rpm 21-Jan-2021 22:55 <-- broken still
gdm-3.28.3-39.el8.x86_64.rpm 29-Jan-2021 05:09 <-- fixed (via a
reverted change)
Even in this single example, there was a 2-month period where CentOS
8 Stream had a regression and both RHEL and CentOS did not and they
skipped the broken versions entirely.
The lag is bad for feature updates and version updates, but really
good for stability and knowing what you're getting since you are
literally building from the same source and won't have instances of
reverted commits like the one above.
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
On 6/23/21 8:13 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
> pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
> In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
> getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
> like old CentOS did.
>
> However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you should
> be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
> Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
>
>
>
> On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
>> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell: "a
>> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat CTO
>> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due to
>> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't think
>> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported. (E.g.
>> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under you
>> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian have
>> point releases.
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
Nathan,
So with Stream you'll be getting basically RHEL packages, after they
pass through QA and before it lands in actual RHEL.
In fact, it's only with CentOS that you know exactly what you are
getting. The clones will undoubtedly lag behind at various times, just
like old CentOS did.
However, this needn't be a problem, if all works as planned, you should
be able to use RockyLinux or any other clone's packages on CentOS
Stream, since they should be binary compatible.
On 2021-06-22 18:50, Nathan McGarvey wrote:
> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell:
> "a
> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat CTO
> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due to
> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't think
> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported.
> (E.g.
> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under you
> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian have
> point releases.
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rudraksh MK <ru...@indiqus.com.INVALID>.
I’m also not sure how CloudStack’s CI/CD setup works and how easy/complicated it may be to run a full build on Rocky. But we could always run a build of the 4.15.0 release on a standalone Rocky server - planning to do that in the next couple of days, once I build a Rocky template on our test infrastructure.
Got Rocky to work just fine on an advanced networking zone in CloudStack powered by KVM. Pretty normal. Trying Xen now.
On another note - the whole point about versioning is to avoid situations where something new breaks what’s working just fine. I’m honestly not sure what Red Hat is driving at with this stream approach, and I’m willing to bet it will be a disaster.
Best!
Rudraksh Mukta Kulshreshtha
Vice-President - DevOps & R&D
IndiQus Technologies
O +91 11 4055 1411 | M +91 99589 54879
indiqus.com
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited unless proper authorization has been obtained for such action. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to sweep e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that both are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses.
On 22 Jun 2021, 11:20 PM +0530, Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>, wrote:
> All,
> Since CentOS8 (not stream) is officially EOL at the end of this
> year, I'd say keep supporting it until then, but don't support it past
> then. This may be a good 6-month transition to support
> Rocky/Alma/Springdale/whatever. Realistically, I'd be surprised if one
> of those worked and one didn't since they should be by-and-large
> binary-compatible rebuilds from RHEL sources. Possibly slightly lagging
> in release times, but compatible.
>
> Rocky is nice since it isn't "tied" to another company, which is the
> obvious double-edged sword of funding, etc. But it may mean it aligns
> with the ASF more closely in spirit.
>
> Alma has only said they'll support it through the RHEL 8 lifecycle
> (2029): https://almalinux.org/ "Until when will we support AlmaLinux
> OS? AlmaLinux partners has committed to supporting AlmaLinux OS until
> 2029, ...", which is generous, but they do stem from selling CloudLinux.
> So it could become paid-for pretty easily.
>
> CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell: "a
> rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat CTO
> said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due to
> the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't think
> it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported. (E.g.
> what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under you
> pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian have
> point releases.
>
>
> My $0.02 would likely to transition to Rocky, but it may be prudent
> to wait a month or two to make sure it really is stable since they
> *just* released a GA.
>
>
>
> How hard would it be to make a test build on the new Rocky GA and
> see if it looks similar/identical to the CentOS 8.4? Not sure how
> CloudStack's CICD is setup, internally.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Nathan McGarvey
>
>
>
> On 6/22/21 9:41 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> > > (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> > > to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> > > did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> > > to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Nathan McGarvey <na...@gmail.com>.
All,
Since CentOS8 (not stream) is officially EOL at the end of this
year, I'd say keep supporting it until then, but don't support it past
then. This may be a good 6-month transition to support
Rocky/Alma/Springdale/whatever. Realistically, I'd be surprised if one
of those worked and one didn't since they should be by-and-large
binary-compatible rebuilds from RHEL sources. Possibly slightly lagging
in release times, but compatible.
Rocky is nice since it isn't "tied" to another company, which is the
obvious double-edged sword of funding, etc. But it may mean it aligns
with the ASF more closely in spirit.
Alma has only said they'll support it through the RHEL 8 lifecycle
(2029): https://almalinux.org/ "Until when will we support AlmaLinux
OS? AlmaLinux partners has committed to supporting AlmaLinux OS until
2029, ...", which is generous, but they do stem from selling CloudLinux.
So it could become paid-for pretty easily.
CentOS Stream could be fine or a disaster, and it is hard to tell: "a
rolling preview of future RHEL kernels and features." as the RedHat CTO
said seems to imply cloudstack might run into a lot more issues due to
the squishy nature of kernel releases, kvm/libvirt, etc. I don't think
it will be unusable, but it will be hard to say what is supported. (E.g.
what version is "Centos 8 Stream"? Stuff can change out from under you
pretty quickly in that paradigm. Even rolling distros like Debian have
point releases.
My $0.02 would likely to transition to Rocky, but it may be prudent
to wait a month or two to make sure it really is stable since they
*just* released a GA.
How hard would it be to make a test build on the new Rocky GA and
see if it looks similar/identical to the CentOS 8.4? Not sure how
CloudStack's CICD is setup, internally.
Thanks,
-Nathan McGarvey
On 6/22/21 9:41 AM, nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
>
> Regards
>
> On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
>> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
>> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
>> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
>> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
Outraged as I was initially, having thought more about CentOS Stream now
that the dust has settled imho it should continue to be supported as
first class platform.
For most/many intents and purposes it'll be RHEL, only supported for 5
years.
I think it's going to be as good or better (considering RedHat QA) than
Ubuntu LTS, quality wise.
I guess both CentOS Stream and RHEL clones will have to prove themselves
in the near/mid future and we should be watching carefully.
BTW, we should also keep an eye on AlmaLinux which released well before
Rocky and it's also backed by a charity.
Regards
On 2021-06-22 16:40, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Both I guess, 8-Stream may not same kind of stability like an LTS
> release.
>
> Regards.
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
> ________________________________
> From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11:45 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> Hi,
>
> Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
>
> Regards
>
> On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
>> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
>> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
>> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
>> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Hean Seng <he...@gmail.com>.
My Opinion is if support on Stream, might as well just proceed on Fedora
Server. Alternatively can consider Rocky or Alma , but this two variant is
quite new.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:40 PM Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> Both I guess, 8-Stream may not same kind of stability like an LTS release.
>
> Regards.
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
> ________________________________
> From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11:45 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> Hi,
>
> Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
>
> Regards
>
> On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> > (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> > to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> > did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> > to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohit Yadav
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Hean Seng
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Hean Seng <he...@gmail.com>.
My Opinion is if support on Stream, might as well just proceed on Fedora
Server. Alternatively can consider Rocky or Alma , but this two variant is
quite new.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:40 PM Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> Both I guess, 8-Stream may not same kind of stability like an LTS release.
>
> Regards.
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
> ________________________________
> From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11:45 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
>
> Hi,
>
> Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
>
> Regards
>
> On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> > (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> > to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> > did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> > to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohit Yadav
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Hean Seng
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Both I guess, 8-Stream may not same kind of stability like an LTS release.
Regards.
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11:45 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Hi,
Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
Regards
On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Both I guess, 8-Stream may not same kind of stability like an LTS release.
Regards.
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
________________________________
From: nux@li.nux.ro <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11:45 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Hi,
Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
Regards
On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
Hi,
Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
Regards
On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rudraksh MK <ru...@indiqus.com.INVALID>.
+1. We were planning to run a few experiments with Rocky on ACS 4.15 sometime this week, across VMware, Xen and KVM to make sure there are no kinks around RPM packages, cloud-init and so on. Will message on this thread if something does come up.
Best!
Rudraksh Mukta Kulshreshtha
Vice-President - DevOps & R&D
IndiQus Technologies
O +91 11 4055 1411 | M +91 99589 54879
indiqus.com
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited unless proper authorization has been obtained for such action. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to sweep e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that both are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses.
On 22 Jun 2021, 1:12 PM +0530, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>, wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4 (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by nu...@li.nux.ro.
Hi,
Drop support for CentOS8, 8-Stream or both?
Regards
On 2021-06-22 08:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4
> (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now
> to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I
> did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue
> to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
Re: [DISCUSS] Rocky 8.4 and CloudStack
Posted by Rudraksh MK <ru...@indiqus.com.INVALID>.
+1. We were planning to run a few experiments with Rocky on ACS 4.15 sometime this week, across VMware, Xen and KVM to make sure there are no kinks around RPM packages, cloud-init and so on. Will message on this thread if something does come up.
Best!
Rudraksh Mukta Kulshreshtha
Vice-President - DevOps & R&D
IndiQus Technologies
O +91 11 4055 1411 | M +91 99589 54879
indiqus.com
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited unless proper authorization has been obtained for such action. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. Although IndiQus attempts to sweep e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that both are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses.
On 22 Jun 2021, 1:12 PM +0530, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>, wrote:
> All,
>
> With GA release of Rocky Linux 8.4 (https://docs.rockylinux.org/release_notes/8.4) does it make sense now to completely drop support for CentOS8 in the next major release? I did a quick test and it seems rpms built on centos8 container continue to work on Rocky release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
>
>