Adds rocky linux 9

[gocallag]

Changes introduced with this PR

• Creates a buildcontainer:rockylinux9

Are you the owner of the code you are sending in, or do you have permission of the owner?

y

[dupondje]

Thanks for your PR.
The question here is, is there a reason we also need RockyLinux 9?

I think we surely want CentOS Stream 9 itself, and we would like to have everything running (pipelines, ost, etc) also on AlmaLinux 9. But do we want to have builds/images/tests etc also on RockyLinux 9? Is there any advantage for rocky over alma for example?

Not that I don't want it, but I don't know if it's worth the overhead + who will keep it up-to-date and maintained.

One of the reasons we went for Alma is that for example in Alma10 they will re-add SPICE support, which can be useful for our users.

[fraenki]

Is there any advantage for rocky over alma for example?

I think it's good to have a choice. Personally I prefer Rocky Linux, so I would be somewhat disappointed if I would be forced to use Alma Linux instead. But that's just my personal preference. 😊

[dupondje]

Is there any advantage for rocky over alma for example?

I think it's good to have a choice. Personally I prefer Rocky Linux, so I would be somewhat disappointed if I would be forced to use Alma Linux instead. But that's just my personal preference. 😊

Choices are indeed good. But many choices come at a cost of maintaining those.
So was just wondering, is there a big advantage of using Rocky compared to Alma for example?
The packages build for CentOS and Alma should be installable en working on Rocky also btw.

[fraenki]

So was just wondering, is there a big advantage of using Rocky compared to Alma for example? The packages build for CentOS and Alma should be installable en working on Rocky also btw.

Well, if you have several hundred of servers running Rocky Linux, then you probably don't want to introduce other operating systems. But if the packages are compatible, then that's fine for me. I use several packages that are built for RHEL on Rocky Linux.

[gocallag]

Thanks for your PR.
The question here is, is there a reason we also need RockyLinux 9?

I think we surely want CentOS Stream 9 itself, and we would like to have everything running (pipelines, ost, etc) also on AlmaLinux 9. But do we want to have builds/images/tests etc also on RockyLinux 9? Is there any advantage for rocky over alma for example?

Not that I don't want it, but I don't know if it's worth the overhead + who will keep it up-to-date and maintained.

One of the reasons we went for Alma is that for example in Alma10 they will re-add SPICE support, which can be useful for our users.

I understand completely. I was just responding to an outstanding bug to add for ovirt node. If as a project it's not a priority then I'm cool with that. I just think we should be clear in our comms / website