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

[Simon J Mudd]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, John Morris wrote:

> On 13 Dec 2003, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> > It would be better IMO that the redhat-release package mimicked the RH
> > version, and perhaps whatever other tests are generally will work
> > equally well on WBL.  That way applications designed for RHEL should
> > recognise WBL as RHEL and should generally work without
> > problems... AND vice versa. This provides a larger audience to the
> > software for both OSes.
>
> 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.
> 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.

Thank you for at least considering this.

However is it correct to look for the /etc/redhat-release file or check
that the redhat-release package is installed? I would go for maintaining
the redhat-release "compatibility" package although perhaps not
bother about the /usr/share/doc/redhat-release.../stuff.

If necessary modifying the Description (from rpm -qi redhat-release) to
indicate that this is a "compatibility rpm" would keep the RH boys
happier.

Simon