
Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1708) on x86_64 derived from RHEL 7.4 - gtirloni
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2017-September/022532.html
======
jlgaddis
This is some great news that I've been waiting to hear! 7.4 has been a huge
undertaking and I'm quite pleased that they've managed to get it out so
quickly.

> _We had a record number of missing build requirements (that is, things
> required to build the release that are not actually in the distribution to
> run the released packages). These packages are not part of RHEL proper and
> each one has to be researched and an appropriate package found (usually from
> EPEL or the Fedora Archives) to build the packages. In the 1708 release, we
> had 11 of those source packages to find. In the previous four CentOS release
> cycles there were a total of 5._

There was a large amount of software in RHEL 7.4 that was rebased to much
newer versions (much more than is typical) which is a very welcome change. I'm
glad to see that Red Hat (and, by extension, CentOS) are willing to put in the
work to provide newer versions of popular software in point releases (and not
just major releases). This makes using RHEL/CentOS an option for those who
prefer newer software over long-term stability.

HN'ers, particularly, may likely be interested in the new versions of OpenSSH,
OpenSSL, libvirt, and rsyslog (along with their new features) that are
included in 7.4.

There was a separate announcement [0] regarding armhfp. Links to new (7.4)
images (e.g., for the Raspberry Pi) are included in that announcement.

N.B.: Those who use vagrant will want to skim over the list of "Known Issues"
[1].

[0]: [https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-
announce/2017-Sept...](https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-
announce/2017-September/022534.html)

[1]: [https://seven.centos.org/2017/09/updated-centos-vagrant-
imag...](https://seven.centos.org/2017/09/updated-centos-vagrant-images-
available-v1708-01/)

~~~
Crontab
> These packages are not part of RHEL proper and each one has to be researched
> and an appropriate package found

Given that Centos is now owned by Redhat, isn't this really just theatre?

~~~
bonzini
Pretty much, but not in the sense that you mean. CentOS does the right thing
in keeping a clean room.

However, it's theatre to insist that RHEL as distributed need not self host.
(I am on RHEL engineering, and fought unsuccessfully to include some package
in RHEL6---unsuccessfully because "customers don't need it"\---only to see it
included in RHEL7 because some customer requested it...)

That said, it's a dozen packages so it's not a huge deal.

~~~
jlgaddis
> _... unsuccessfully because "customers don't need it ..."_

And yet, as I noticed (yet again) earlier today while working on kickstarts,
it is impossible to get rid of some packages that I will never want installed
because they are listed as _required_ dependencies when they really should be,
at most, "recommends".

For example, I'm currently putting together a kickstart file for a minimal
"desktop" installation on ThinkPads -- well, as minimal as RHEL will let me,
that is (which isn't saying much). There are numerous packages that I
absolutely do not want on these systems but that I am stuck with, such as:
bluez, cups-{libs,pk-helper}, gnome-bluetooth{,-libs}, gnome-online-accounts,
libsmbclient, oddjob-mkhomedir, samba-{client-libs,common},
tigervnc-{license,server-minimal}, and probably some others that I'm
forgetting at the moment.

A few of these -- the Bluetooth-related ones -- are particularly relevant [0],
yet I can't uninstall these packages (or, better yet, avoid installing them in
the first place) without rpm/yum insisting on also taking out dozens of other,
critical packages (no, "\--nodeps" is not an acceptable solution). Yes, I can
"hack" my way around it (disabling services/unit files, etc.) but it would be
great if one didn't have to do that in the first place.

Sorry, this wasn't directed at you personally, but rather Red Hat in general.

> _...fought unsuccessfully to include some package in RHEL6 ..._

On a side note, I'm now curious which package you were referring to.

</rant>

~~~
bonzini
The ACPI assembler if I remember correctly.

BTW, an easy way to block Bluetooth is blacklisting the kernel module. RPM
only got soft dependencies recently, so maybe you can check whether Fedora
uses them for Bluetooth userspace packages and similar.

~~~
jlgaddis
Yeah, the "bluetooth" module is one of several that I disable ("install
bluetooth /bin/true" in /etc/modprobe.d/disabled.conf) but -- from a paranoid
security perspective -- I'd much prefer to not have the software installed in
the place. I also have BT disabled in the BIOS. Many, many years ago I'd
compile my own kernels and leave out all the stuff I didn't want but that's
not worth my time nowadays.

------
emmelaich
One major change is the move of various Kubernetes daemons to docker
containers rather than rpm.

Upstream change log here: [https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
us/red_hat_enterp...](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-
us/red_hat_enterprise_linux_atomic_host/7/html-single/release_notes/)

------
pharaohgeek
I'm still waiting for Swift support on RHEL/CentOS. It's great that Swift
finally runs on Linux, but my company has standardized on RHEL, so we can't
run Ubuntu to get Swift support. If RedHat rolled out RPMS for Swift that
would make my life SO much easier!

------
forapurpose
As a user who wants an OS that 'just works' so that I can work on other
things, why wouldn't I choose CentOS over Fedora for my laptop?

~~~
TheDong
You wouldn't.

CentOS is aimed at servers which are maintained by sysadmins who know RHEL
well (e.g. RHEL certified), or who just want really friggin' stable shit.

A developer usually wants someting that has a tradeoff closer to "newer" on
the "stability vs upgrades" tradeoff.

For a dev laptop, absolutely use fedora over centos.

~~~
Sir_Substance
>or who just want really friggin' stable shit.

Critically for potential desktop users, this means you can't necessarily
expect things like touchpad drivers to work. Hardware support, especially
consumer hardware support, can take years to trickle into centos releases.

That stability may well be deeply desirable in a server that has to undergo
security audits every so often, but it won't help you install it on a laptop.

~~~
bonzini
> consumer hardware support, can take years to trickle into centos releases.

Not necessarily, after all non-technical Red Hat employees run RHEL on bog
standard Lenovo ThinkPads and model choice includes pretty recent hardware
(and even some models with Optimus, lately).

Technical employees mostly run Fedora, though some use RHEL and others are die
hard Debian or Gentoo fans.

------
smegel
Do they not call it CentOS 7.4? I thought they did for the 6-series releases.

~~~
rconti
I'm not sure of the exact specifics, but they have dropped the minor version
numbering in favor of, I guess, build number.

You'll find that you can no longer rely on a static repo for (say) 7.3 to stay
static and instead 7 will be symlinked to latest.

------
Tomte
And as usual: let's shame CentOS for their embarassing manuals page and their
unwillingness(!) to fix it:
[https://www.centos.org/docs/](https://www.centos.org/docs/)

------
nailer
Cool. It has ALPN support, needed for HTTP/2 in Chrome.

Also no ifconfig by default, which is good as it hasn't worked properly on any
distro for a decade and people keep using it.

~~~
101km
As a public service I'll just leave this here:
[https://dougvitale.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/deprecated-
linux...](https://dougvitale.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/deprecated-linux-
networking-commands-and-their-replacements/)

