I'm happy to pitch in if needed.

-- Brian Stinson

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Kay Williams kay@deployproject.org wrote:

Is there information somewhere on what has been done in the past, what worked well, what didn't, etc?

Would be nice if changes could be centralized in some way so that folks wanting to make custom branded distros based on CentOS could leverage.

...

-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel- bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:34 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7

Well, we havent really done this seven times before, but given its targetting CentOS Seven it feels apt to mark it ed.7

Over the next couple of days, we are going to have the git repos populated with the rhel7beta and then rhel7rc content and we need to boostrap the larger branding hunt.

Comments, ideas and process recommendations on how we might run this are now welcome. Also, people interested in helping run the effort please make yourself known now!

Regards,

Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 05/14/2014 03:29 PM, Kay Williams wrote:

Is there information somewhere on what has been done in the past, what worked well, what didn't, etc?

Would be nice if changes could be centralized in some way so that folks wanting to make custom branded distros based on CentOS could leverage.

Well, the goal is to change the minimal amount of things possible to meet both the requirements to redistribute the software (from the Red Hat trademark perspective) ... and also to meet the intent of the requirement.

Here is the document:

http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf

Specifically we are looking at page 5 under the heading, "Publishing and Marketing Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux Software That Has Been Modified"

The exact rules are that "RedHat-Logos" and "Anaconda-Images" need to be changed. I have done this in a new centos-logos package that will be provided for review on git.centos.org. With that we meet the actual requirement of the PDF.

But the intent is also that if something claims to be Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we should change it. Also, if the logo appears in things other than documentation within the distro we should change it.

For example, if something says to submit a bug report to bugzilla.redhat.com, we would want to instead say bugs.centos.org, so we want to change this.

But, if something is there because of copyright or to designate credit for work performed then we do not want to change it ... so, as an example, the About section of a LibreOffice app says: "This release was supplied by Red Hat, Inc." That is a true statement and does not need to be changed .. if it said "Created for Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or something similar, we would change the RPM to take that out.

The SRPMs that we currently change will either start with the name centos, or have a .centos. in the name (the one exception being the kernel package .. we change it and we do not change the name so 3rd Party drivers supplied for booting the kernel will work with both the Red Hat and CentOS kernels.

We also list the modified SRPMs in our release notes, so for the CentOS-6.5 release here is the list:

http://bit.ly/1ljZd5I

Thanks, Johnny Hughes

...

-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel- bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:34 AM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7

Well, we havent really done this seven times before, but given its targetting CentOS Seven it feels apt to mark it ed.7

Over the next couple of days, we are going to have the git repos populated with the rhel7beta and then rhel7rc content and we need to boostrap the larger branding hunt.

Comments, ideas and process recommendations on how we might run this are now welcome. Also, people interested in helping run the effort please make yourself known now!

Regards,

Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Dear All,

Can't we use the packagelist from RHEL 6 as an initial list of packages, which need to be "re-branded"?

Peter

----- Eredeti üzenet -----

Feladó: "Kay Williams" kay@deployproject.org Címzett: "The CentOS developers mailing list." centos-devel@centos.org Elküldött üzenetek: Hétfő, 2014. Május 19. 0:29:48 Tárgy: Re: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7

See comments at the end...

...

-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel- bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:30 AM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] The Branding Hunt. Ed. 7

On 05/14/2014 03:29 PM, Kay Williams wrote:

...

Is there information somewhere on what has been done in the past,

what

...

worked well, what didn't, etc?

Would be nice if changes could be centralized in some way so that folks wanting to make custom branded distros based on CentOS could

leverage.

Well, the goal is to change the minimal amount of things possible to meet both the requirements to redistribute the software (from the Red Hat trademark perspective) ... and also to meet the intent of the requirement.

Here is the document:

http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf

Specifically we are looking at page 5 under the heading, "Publishing and Marketing Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux Software That Has Been Modified"

The exact rules are that "RedHat-Logos" and "Anaconda-Images" need to be changed. I have done this in a new centos-logos package that will be provided for review on git.centos.org. With that we meet the actual requirement of the PDF.

But the intent is also that if something claims to be Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we should change it. Also, if the logo appears in things other than documentation within the distro we should change it.

For example, if something says to submit a bug report to bugzilla.redhat.com, we would want to instead say bugs.centos.org, so we want to change this.

But, if something is there because of copyright or to designate credit for work performed then we do not want to change it ... so, as an example, the About section of a LibreOffice app says: "This release was supplied by Red Hat, Inc." That is a true statement and does not need to be changed .. if it said "Created for Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or something similar, we would change the RPM to take that out.

The SRPMs that we currently change will either start with the name centos, or have a .centos. in the name (the one exception being the kernel package .. we change it and we do not change the name so 3rd Party drivers supplied for booting the kernel will work with both the Red Hat and CentOS kernels.

We also list the modified SRPMs in our release notes, so for the CentOS-6.5 release here is the list:

http://bit.ly/1ljZd5I

Thanks, Johnny Hughes

Hi Johnny, this all makes sense.

Is the thinking for centos7, then, to "assign out" chunks of packages to reviewers/hunters, who when then look at sources for text/logos that should be changed?

Would you want the reviewers to sign off for packages reviewed? How many packages would be typical for a reviewer to handle in a volunteer-friendly amount of time? How would branding hunting happen on an ongoing basis as new packages are added?

This could be a pretty huge effort. And a little deflating for reviewers? A bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. Perhaps some part could be automated, say an initial pass over sources looking for variants of the text "Red Hat" in text or file names, and then reviewers could look at just those packages?

I can definitely contribute some hours to the effort. Just trying to understand where/how to help and how people's time can be used wisely.

Thanks, Kay

---

CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 05/19/2014 11:42 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:

On 19/05/14 10:23, Bojtos Péter wrote:

...

Dear All,

Can't we use the packagelist from RHEL 6 as an initial list of packages, which need to be "re-branded"?

Peter

Yes, that would be a good start, indeed. Also worth noting that several packages were modified/patched because of the logo, but *also* for functional changes. As an example, the conga SRPM in el5/el6 has been modified to also roll-in CentOS support (for the ricci/luci nodes) so sometimes "branding" isn't the only thing to search for, but also functional code change required too

I will have 2 things done for today : 1) a guide to what debranding and rebranding implies, along with a broad set of goals to follow

2) a process to whitelist / blacklist; and must-have, good-to-have, nice-to-have, to-have-or-not-to-have list.

We can then co-ordinate the effort off a github repo, we can consider content accepted from github.com to git.centos.org as being the signoff ( we can have acl's that allow a larger group to facilitate this )

regards

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:

On 19/05/14 10:23, Bojtos Péter wrote:

...

Dear All,

Can't we use the packagelist from RHEL 6 as an initial list of packages, which need to be "re-branded"?

Peter

Yes, that would be a good start, indeed. Also worth noting that several packages were modified/patched because of the logo, but *also* for functional changes. As an example, the conga SRPM in el5/el6 has been modified to also roll-in CentOS support (for the ricci/luci nodes) so sometimes "branding" isn't the only thing to search for, but also functional code change required too

In case it helps. I generated a list of changed rpms in c6 a while back, including a short summary of the changes:

abrt • change gpg keys (swap rh patch for similar centos patch) • change desk-vendor macro in spec anaconda • three patches • bump release? centos-indexhtml • analogue of redhat-indexhtml • different content centos-release • analogue of redhat-release dhcp • branding patch • change vvendor macro in spec firefox • new default prefs file ∘ changes general.useragent.vendor ∘ also storage.nfs_filesystem? dom.ipc.plugins.enabled.nswrapper? intentional? gnome-desktop • change %configure distributor parameter in spec httpd • new index.html source file ∘ index.html -> centos_index.html ∘ is the rename necessary? • change vstring macro in spec initscripts • patch: changes to rc.sysinit ∘ print CentOS on boot if "$system_release" =~ "CentOS" kabi-whitelists • description change kabi-yum-plugins • summary/description change kde-settings • branding patch, hits several files luci • add favicon • patch to add Centos to uname_str based behavior switch ntp • add CentOS Pool servers (spec change only) openssl098e • description change in spec plymouth • remove everything-is-better-in-red patch • note: this appears to be purely aesthetic. redhat-bookmarks • not renamed [?] ∘ maybe a dep issue • changed default-bookmarks source file • spec branding edits (summary, url, description) redhat-logos • tarball changed • spec changed, basically a fork redhat-lsb • spec rebranding. summary, description sos • added centos branding patch (long, lots of translations) system-config-date • spec change -- adjust POOL_NTP_ORG_VENDOR ∘ no changelog entry thunderbird • new default prefs file ∘ change user agent virt-p2v • source file (iso) changed ∘ changed splash.jpg in isolinux dir ∘ also boot.cat differs, probably (re)generated • spec: change explicit dist tag virt-who • drop python-rhsm req (not shipped) xorg-x11-server • spec changes only • change vendor name in bodhi_flags macro xulrunner • new default prefs file ∘ user agent ∘ startup.homepage ∘ homepage_override_url ∘ homepage_welcome_url yum • yum.conf.centos ∘ setting changes ‣ installonly_limit, bugtracker_url, distroverpkg • yum-updatesd.conf.centos ∘ no changes apart from name • corresponding .fedora conf files dropped • spec ∘ Requires: yum-plugin-fastestmirror • I'm not sure any of this counts as debranding

In addition, there were several packages rebuild with .centos in the release that did not appear to have any source changes. I assume these were rebuilds due to build environment issues rather than code or branding issues. at-spi gnome-applets gtk2-engines libcanberra libgail-gnome librsvg2 libwmf