On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:28 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:26 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > The question I have for the abrt folks, is there any code that would > > lead to a bug being filed for rawhide? If so, how is that code triggered? > > I believe they claimed it was through parsing for "Rawhide" in the > release string value. I think that's a little flimsy in general though. > Shouldn't we have some other way to indicate this is rawhide? Mandriva introduced a /etc/product.id file to their mandriva-release package, which identifies a release in a kind of more detailed and possibly more reliably parseable way. I'm not sure if that's not just something else that can go wrong, though. It looks like this: vendor=Mandriva,distribution=Mandriva Linux,type=Basic,version=2010.1,branch=Official,release=1,arch=i586,product=Free and is documented at http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/product_id I'm not sure parsing /etc/redhat-release or whatever is really *wrong*, though. I mean, that's the thing that exists to define what release you're on. If the release is Rawhide and it doesn't say Rawhide, then I'd say that's pretty much always going to be a bug, so I'm not entirely sure why it'd be a problem to identify Rawhide by parsing /etc/foo-release for Rawhide. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
