On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 04:40:38PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 04:09:35PM +0200, Cédric Bosdonnat wrote: > > --- > > data/oses/suse.xml.in | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/data/oses/suse.xml.in b/data/oses/suse.xml.in > > index dbd190a..ba98d9c 100644 > > --- a/data/oses/suse.xml.in > > +++ b/data/oses/suse.xml.in > > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ > > <short-id>sles9</short-id> > > <_name>Suse Linux Enterprise Server 9</_name> > > <version>9</version> > > - <_vendor>Novell</_vendor> > > + <_vendor>SUSE</_vendor> > > Was it released by SUSE or Novell? If it was released by Novell, I'm not > sure we want to change <vendor> to what it is now, rather than to what it > was when it was released. If it was released by SUSE, ACK to the whole > patch. Even when owned by Novell, it was still run as a subsiduary called SUSE, so I think it is right that we call it SUSE throughout the file. We don't need to trace our way up the corporate ownership ladder :-) Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
