Bug 1956851 - centos-stream-release: rename to centos-release
Summary: centos-stream-release: rename to centos-release
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
Classification: Red Hat
Component: distribution
Version: CentOS Stream
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: beta
: ---
Assignee: RHEL Program Management
QA Contact: Release Test Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-05-04 14:29 UTC by Carl George 🤠
Modified: 2021-05-05 22:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Carl George 🤠 2021-05-04 14:29:37 UTC
Description of problem:
We used different release package names in 8 to distinguish between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream.  There will only be one 9 distribution, so we should revert back to the traditional centos-release name.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
centos-stream-release-9.0-1.0.4.el9


Additional info:
The dist-git repo is already named centos-release, so changing this would help avoid confusion.

Comment 1 Josh Boyer 2021-05-05 16:37:01 UTC
This seems unnecessary and from a branding perspective it seems like it would cause even more confusion by dropping the "stream" from the RPM name.  CentOS Linux 8 is going to be retired at the end of the year, but CentOS Linux 7 still exists.  Having "centos-linux" represent two fundamentally different distributions is likely not ideal.  Might be a "too soon" kind of timing that we can look at after CentOS Linux 7 retires.

Can you elaborate on who is currently confused?

Comment 2 Carl George 🤠 2021-05-05 22:42:42 UTC
It hasn't been a problem yet, but my concern is that if a contributor want to submit a change to this package they won't find a centos-stream-release repo in GitLab.

Waiting until after the retirement of CL7 would mean renaming the package in the middle of the CS9 lifecycle.  We're early enough in the process that renaming it now would not be disruptive.  In my opinion, it's now(-ish) or never for CS9.  Of course if we punt this for now I'd like to revisit for CS10.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.