[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Speaking of rhn/up2date

On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 07:46, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Leonard den Ottolander (leonard den ottolander nl) said: 
> > Since up2date on FC has no longer anything to do with the Red Hat
> > Network I was wondering why the relevant configuration directory in
> > /etc/sysconfig is still called rhn. Isn't it time to change that into
> > up2date instead? Maybe keep a compatibility symlink around for one
> > release or so?
> It would have to be a configure option, since it's certainly
> still built with RHN support. As such, I'm not sure it's worth it.
> Bill

Bill, maybe a configure option to build for RHEL or FC _would_ be
reasonable? I mean, the up2date package contains many RHN components
that are not appropriate for FC and in some cases are quite confusing;
such as people thinking they still have to register with RHN. Is it not
possible to strip all RHN components from the Fedora build of up2date? 

Registered Linux User #348963 / counter.li.org
GnuPG KeyID: 0xCE9F8922 / gnupg.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]