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 > > > > >