Speaking of rhn/up2date
Matt Hansen
matt at matthansen.net
Wed Jul 28 06:01:44 UTC 2004
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 07:46, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Leonard den Ottolander (leonard at 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?
Matt
--
Registered Linux User #348963 / counter.li.org
GnuPG KeyID: 0xCE9F8922 / gnupg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040728/e602a08b/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list