On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:01 AM Gionatan Danti <g.danti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Il 2020-12-10 04:55 Brendan Conoboy ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:07 PM Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/9/20 12:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >> > While I'm not sure how we'll get there, it seems like the
> >> > mutually satisfying end result would be one where third party binary
> >> > drivers work with CentOS Stream kernels. Let's see what we can do.
> >> >
> >> So, I want to address this part a bit. In MANY cases, it's not a
> >> third-party driver that ELrepo packages; it's an in-kernel driver that
> >> Red Hat has decided to disable. Such as the megaraid_sas driver I
> >> need
> >> for my servers.
> >>
> >
> > Ah yes, that's a great call-out. I'm not sure what the plan is there
> > (or
> > if there is one), but to me it seems like the sort of thing a SIG would
> > build.
>
> Brendan, can you clarify the following points?
>
I'll take a stab at it, though I'll note Josh Boyer has already provided a
few answers to similar questions...
> - are you going to keep stable ABI between Stream kernel releases, or
> should we expect each kernel to break 3rd party drivers/modules?
>
All our kernel changes are implemented against the kernel ABI- there is no
point in time during release development when we have interim changes in
the kernel that ignore the symbols in the whitelist. So basically if your
experience of going from one minor release to another has been smooth, the
incremental kernels between those two releases would also tend to run
smooth, assuming whatever motions happen with the 3rd party drivers/modules
behind the scenes continue to happen (for example, rebuilding from source).
> - what/how many synchronization points are going to be with RHEL
> releases?
>
I'm not sure I'm interpreting your question correctly, could you restate?
I don't want to hit you with detailed process information only to find out
I'm answering the wrong question!
> - what about security updates? Will they be released *before* the
> corresponding RHEL secure patch, or should we expect the (slow) current
> update cadency?
>
RHEL development prioritizes CVE resolution in support streams, followed by
current release update streams.
> - is an upgrade path from Stream-8 to Stream-9 planned, or the usual
> "total server rebuild" will be necessary?
>
Upgrades are important. We continue to invest in the major release upgrade
tooling introduced with the launch of RHEL 8.
Full disclosure: the main CentOS point was to be 100% compatible, down
> to the specific kernel used, with RHEL. To get that, we lived with: a)
> comparatively few packages, b) not-working yum security-only updates and
> c) very restrictive selinux policies.
>
> I am heavily invested in CentOS/RHEL ecosystem and I opened many bug
> reports/enhancement requests in the past years, so I would really like
> to continue using CentOS. However, using Stream seems to removing the
> key selling point (ie: total RHEL compatibility) without clear benefit.
>
Thanks for the bug reports :-) I hear you on RHEL compatibility. With my
OS developer hat on I think CentOS Stream will be more RHEL compatible, but
if I put on my old dusty ops hat I can understand why it might not look
that way right now.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Linux Project Lead / Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
