On 06/03/2014 12:47 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? If we can, we could/should add CentOS distros there - and set suiteable defaults to match. After all, the install route for CentOS Linux is quite different from RHEL ( even the ISO media! ). -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc