[CentOS-devel] Closing out CentOS 6 Bugs

[JohnS]

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:50 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:

No problem it was the "CC:" is why.  It deleted my dev list copy.
Here's again to dev list for KB.  If needed I'll do the BR.

John

> 
> On 01/05/2011 12:36 PM, JohnS wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 11:42 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> On 01/05/2011 11:40 AM, JohnS wrote:
> >>> Karanbir,
> >>>
> >>> Can you look into closing out the bugs that can be closed etc?
> >>
> >> Yes, I will try and get to that either today or early in the day tomorrow.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >>> Can also [1,2] be looked into to confirm package depends on abrt /
> >>> report (hidden gotchas).  Look at the example spec file at the changes
> >>> that are required and the level of them that the Application Backend
> >>> will have to support.  Is there someone that can take on the App Server
> >>> end?
> >>>
> >>> Also needed to know if you are symlinking from "redhat-release" to
> >>> "centos-release" or not.  That depends on how other packages need to be
> >>> patched, ie "lsb_release".
> >>
> >> I am keen on looking at using a centos-release with a link over from
> >> redhat-release, but lets consider / look at the implications and
> >> fallouts before deciding on something for sure. There should not be any
> >> reason to patch redhat-lsb;
> >
> > This here in the spec file needs to be done so it does not imply to the
> > user that it is RHEL:
> >
> >   redhat-lsb.spec.orig	2010-01-15 01:57:55.000000000 -0500
> > +++ redhat-lsb.spec	2010-12-02 06:15:17.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
> >   %define lsbrelver 4.0
> >   %define srcrelease 1
> >
> > -Summary: LSB base libraries support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> > +Summary: LSB base libraries support for CentOS
> >
> >> whatever we do should not, ideally, have any
> >> impact on code and expectations from other apps ( specially since there
> >> might be implications to third party apps that we cant / dont want to
> >> have a feedback loop into )
> >>
> >> What do you see as needing patched into redhat_lsb, that would fallout
> >
> > Well doing it by using a sym link in /etc nothing needs changing.
> > CHECKFIRST="/etc/redhat-release"  as so that will catch the link sym
> > link so nothing will be changed in it.
> >
> > If you do the reverse of the above CHECKFIRST="/etc/centos-release" then
> > it needs a fix me up.  So I say go with the symlink
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>