Scott Silva wrote:
> The bug page gives you the status. It was assigned (to Karanbir), and
he ack'ed it. If it was fixed, it would
> be resolved. It shouldn't be that hard to apply the fix manually and
your legal department is too rigid if they
> are that picky about a fix to "free" software. I can see if they were
paying contract support on it.
I appreciate the response. If you recall I did post the link so it's a
safe assumption that I read the page and understood it's content. What
I'm after is whether there's any other information channel that might
not be so obvious for seeing if there might be action coming up for an
particular issue. Being in a highly regulated industry the legal
department has a tough job. I work within the guidelines they set.
> If Karanbir thinks it merits an upstream bug report, I'm almost sure
he might do that, if the original bug
> poster doesn't. It "might" be fixed by the time
> 5.3 comes out, but do you want to wait?
I am restricted to 5.1 as approved by legal. 5.2 is not approved so 5.3
isn't an option either. Once I can sort out whether something
"official" will fix this I can then determine how to pursue this
internally. A workaround fix does not address that the kickstart-built
system will still contain this bug as it will be built from RPM's that
are not fixed.
Eucke
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
