[WBEL-devel] Choosing a RHEL rebuild project

[Johnny Hughes]

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 06:52, Hedemark, Magnus wrote:
> Henk van Lingen [mailto:henkvl@cs.uu.nl] said:
> 
> > What are the things being  
> > 'rough around the
> >   edges' in the various rebuilds? I suppose mostly artwork, remains of
> >   RedHat trademarks and installer things? 
> 
> Mostly, yeah.  If you look at the CentOS desktop, the printer icon in the
> toolbar is very fuzzy, like a lower res icon that was scaled up or
> something.  CentOS also has a bad boot floppy image.  WBEL 1.0 was missing
> some i686 packages like glibc, and there were of course some bad ISO's going
> around for awhile after the release.  Nothing technical there to keep me
> from using either one.
> 
> I've pushed the WBEL and CentOS installers and done maybe half a dozen
> kickstart installs of the former and maybe twice as many or so of the
> latter.  I used the miniboot ISO for both.  Both work great.

I have installed both as well ... and both work similarly.  It was the
updates to CentOS and the public mirrors that were the major problem
before. It looks as if there are more CentOS public mirrors now.

It seems that yum or apt are not included and the Build 4 up2date is
4.0.1 (not a fedora one with yum/apt built in). I do see that yum is now
an addon ... so maybe that is no longer an issue.

These are simple issues to fix (if you want to use up2date or the applet
from fedora, download them, etc.) and certainly wouldn't prevent someone
from being able to use either product.

> > I have the, probably
> >   oversimplified, impression that since we are taking about 
> > clones here
> >   there is not much to do anymore once a build environment/scripts has
> >   been set up. From there it is just building all the RH SRPMs, right?
> 
> Well RH has their own bugs that end up coming downstream to us.  It would
> give our projects more legitimacy if we fixed some of those problems and
> submitted patches to RH via their bugzilla system.

I agree, We should put in bugzilla reports to RedHat (for RHEL 3) for
items that are in both RHEL and WBEL ... and if someone has a recommend
patch, they should submit that as well.

> >   Additionally, I'm I right in thinking that upgrading a 
> > running system
> >   from build 4 to final once it arrives is simple, i.e. just 
> > updating a
> >   couple of rpms?
> 
> You might have to use --force because the version numbers aren't going to
> change.  Packages are going to use the same version numbers as RHEL so if
> something is fixed, for example, with some artwork between build 4 and 1.0,
> the version number of the package won't be changed so yum won't even
> consider upgrading it.  I think WBEL largely faced the same issues during
> the beta cycle, no?
Yes, there were similar issues with some packages in WBEL.

After configuring both similarly, CentOS and WBEL each look like RHEL
... (the redhat-release issue being probably the only major difference).

- Johnny Hughes