On 02/06/14 08:04 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 06/03/2014 02:47 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: >> >> On 06/02/2014 05:22 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> >>> 3) To remove ambiguity downstream as to where and what the code >>> represents. This includes replacing strings that brand a component to be >>> a part of RHEL. eg: if something says 'the xxxx for Red Hat Enterprise >>> Linux' we would replace that to say 'the xxxx for CentOS Linux' >>> >>> Some notes to keep in mind while you go through stuff to check for >>> branding issues : >>> a) we are not trying to replace (c) Red Hat, or things where it says its >>> Red Hat influenced, like the 'gcc -v' string >> >> With these in mind, do we care about virt-manager, where it lists RHEL >> as a default install option? Should we amend that to be RHEL/CentOS, or >> leave it as-is? >> >> </devil's advocate> > it depends on how much fate you have in the users. I've seen someone > asking once in #centos what option to use for virt-install since he only > had "rhel", "fedora" ..... You can't make things idiot proof... I would suggest that confusion was a good chance for providing insight to the user on the nature of RHEL vs. CentOS. I think it's find to not specifically name CentOS, personally. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?