Make it unnecessary to add new versions of known distros into the RID graph

[tmds]

Following the discussion on #57832.

We should look into the changes (to the host, nuget and sdk) that make it unnecessary to update the RID graph for new versions of Fedora, Alpine, ...

cc @ericstj @richlander @ViktorHofer @omajid

Tagging subscribers to this area: @Anipik, @safern, @ViktorHofer
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Following the discussion on #57832.

We should look into the changes (to the host, nuget and sdk) that make it unnecessary to update the RID graph for new versions of Fedora, Alpine, ...

cc @ericstj @richlander @ViktorHofer @omajid

Author:	tmds
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-Infrastructure-libraries, untriaged
Milestone:	-

[ViktorHofer]

@ericstj who should own this issue? Sounds like any changes to how the RID is parsed and how RID graphs are represented will affect the host, nuget and the sdk. This probably doesn't belong into "area-infrastructure-libraries".

[tmds]

@ericstj can we aim to do this for .NET 7?

[ericstj]

I was discussing this recently with @eerhardt and I do think this needs to be done. @richlander @terrajobst @baronfel -- how do you think we can best represent this in .NET 7.0 planning?

[safern]

@ericstj I will change the area to area-host for now as it doesn't really belong to area-libraries-infrastrucure. I'd say maybe it would be better if this was a theme issue on dotnet/core and then have the relevant issues splitting the necessary work on each repo that involves this effort?

Tagging subscribers to this area: @vitek-karas, @agocke, @VSadov
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Following the discussion on #57832.

We should look into the changes (to the host, nuget and sdk) that make it unnecessary to update the RID graph for new versions of Fedora, Alpine, ...

cc @ericstj @richlander @ViktorHofer @omajid

Author:	tmds
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-Host, untriaged
Milestone:	-

[eerhardt]

We should look into the changes (to the host, nuget and sdk) that make it unnecessary to update the RID graph for new versions of Fedora,

This question is slightly off topic, but I see:

runtime/src/libraries/Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms/src/runtimeGroups.props

Lines 72 to 77 in 5dc1b4c

	<RuntimeGroup Include="fedora">
	<Parent>linux</Parent>
	<Architectures>x64;arm64</Architectures>
	<Versions>23;24;25;26;27;28;29;30;31;32;33;34;35;36</Versions>
	<TreatVersionsAsCompatible>false</TreatVersionsAsCompatible>
	</RuntimeGroup>

Why does centos and fedora have <TreatVersionsAsCompatible>false</TreatVersionsAsCompatible>, but rhel doesn't? Is forward compatibility not guaranteed in centos and fedora?

[tmds]

Is this included in the .NET 7 plan?

[eerhardt]

See related dotnet/designs#260

Is this included in the .NET 7 plan?

I don't think it is officially committed (yet). We just need to find the right path forward.