[WBEL-devel] An "Issue" with WBEL (pun intended)

[Jimmy Kaplowitz]

--nOM8ykUjac0mNN89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 05:50:35PM -0600, John Morris wrote:
> This isn't the first time it has been suggested that redhat-release should
> remain present.  Personally, can't see why it would be a bad thing to drop
> in a hardlink between whitebox-release and redhat-release for final. =20
> Didn't do it during the RC phase to catch as many internal references as
> possible because internal references was likely something that would need
> de-trademarking.  So unless anyone can come up with a good reason NOT to,
> a link will go in the final release.

Why not a symbolic link? It makes more sense, in my view, to show that
it's _not_ RHEL, but an entirely compatible product. I don't really
object to a hardlink either, but a symbolic link seems more, well,
symbolic of the relationship. After all, two hardlinks are exactly equal
in every sense, as far as the filesystem is concerned, but a symlink
just points or redirects to the other, more accurate name for the
intended file.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy@kaplowitz.org / jimmy@debian.org

--nOM8ykUjac0mNN89
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/26f36uPcNfDX1EoRAha5AJ9kpQA5i4H9lBXLF0GryooagfmIxACgjG/H
SNkH9wLI7wx8bV3TXXy3Mik=
=6PFl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nOM8ykUjac0mNN89--