John Hinton wrote:
> On 4/29/2011 1:46 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 04/29/2011 01:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
>>> I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given
>>> the above paragraph.
>> Probably a programmatic requirement, if I was the betting type.
>>
> I could easily be confused as it has been so long now... I think
> Whitebox actually changed that to whitebox-release and maybe CentOS did
> the save very early on. But, many applications look for that file and if
> they see redhat-release, know their stuff can run on your system and you
> are off to the races. I suppose the final answer was it wasn't an
> infringement and solved a lot of other problems. Seems I had to edit
> this file or name to get something to run on a server like 4 or 5 years
> ago?
>
> Am I required to remember everything I did from that long back? LOL
> There might be some stuff in the archives though... back in the early
> ver. 3 days.
Actually, it annoys me - it *should* be LSB release, not redhat, I always
thought.
mark