Hacker News Reader

Comment by bvrmn | Hacker News Reader

Some reasons why Stream is not replacement for Centos alike (Alma, Rocky, ...).

1. Stream can't be used as base to build el-compatible packages. There is no any guarantees Stream doesn't break ABI compatibility.

2. Stream has no large (several years) support cycle and can't be used as a stable system. Yes, there is a big community who don't need a paid licensed support from a RH and ready to help with bug reports and testing.

View on HN

> There is no any guarantees Stream doesn't break ABI compatibility.

This is incorrect. Or, sure, there are no _guarantees_, but any such break would also break a future RHEL release, and is therefore a bug.

2. Five years.

AFAIK, there is no rule RHEL is strictly based on Stream.

RHEL is branched from Stream and released from the branch every 6 months.

I challenge you to find _one_ package in RHEL (as of the git.centos.org c9 branch) that reverted an ABI breakage that is in Stream, without said reversion having been applied to Stream as well.

> Five years

So basically 2 times less, nice.

Isn’t that the same amount of time Rocky would be supported?

How long typically do packages percolate in Stream before making their way to EL?

The time delta to the next minor version, usually. RHEL has a release in the spring and the fall. The last pair of releases were in May and November. If something landed in CentOS Stream in between May and November, it will probably be part of the November release. If it's after that, then it'll be part of the next spring release.

It's not particularly complex, in my opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com