▲ | baobun 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mostly agree. I think they have some improvement to do on supply-chain though. A lot of random COPRs and kernel patches pulled in from various random third- and first party repos that I think should get consolidated before I can consider it mature and really ready for prime time. Similarly it would also be nice to see end-to-end builds being reproducible locally. (Things are currently hardcoded to github.com or tied to GitHub Actions in a few places. The patching required for that is nothing crazy - Good First Issue material :)) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | jcastro 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For Bluefin LTS we're in control of all the 3rd party repositories we use. We depend on EPEL but so does everybody else. I am unaware of any kernel patches that we are shipping since we ship the default CentOS Stream kernel and the optional hwe kernel ships CentOSs' kmod kernel. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | bjconlan 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perhaps if a supply chain attack is your largest concern then using some well vetted system like wolfi is more up your alley. (See some of their related repos on GitHub https://github.com/projectbluefin - I've been following the development of it and currently it still under development.) Again "vetting" is a source of contention here as I'm not sure how the quality of official rpm sources compare to those outlined in an sbom |