mailing-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Johnny Hughes) writes:
> The only issue might be things that look specifically for something
> in /etc/redhat-release.
>
> Obviously, we can't put the same line that RH puts in their product, so
> some installers (like Oracle) that specifically look for a string from
> upstream will not initially work with CentOS.
I've never understood this.
If centos/whitebox/... wants to look like RHEL why not produce:
1. their centos-release rpm with appropriate files
2. an "redhat-release" rpm with required files ( /etc/redhat-release probably only)
- then make sure that the rpm -qi redhat-release says
"redhat-release rpm built to provide redhat compatibility"
"This rpm is built on and for centos-a.b...."
Then everyone can use the normal redhat-release RPM or
/etc/redhat-release checks (which are recompiled originals from
redhat) without worrying if the system is a "clone" or not. The build
server will show they are not built by redhat, and if you really care
you can look for a centos-release rpm to see if it is a clone.
> It is usually very easy to get these to work .. look at this example and
> search for redhat-release on the page:
>
> http://www.puschitz.com/InstallingOracle10g.shtml
>
> And it will tell you how to change your /etc/redhat-release file to
> allow there installers to function.
This would not be necessary if the above methodology were used.
Perhaps RH will sue the "RH clone" builders if they include a
redhat-release rpm or /etc/redhat-release file? It would seem rather silly.
Simon
