Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Jeu 31 août 2006 06:45, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
On 8/30/06, Paul B Schroeder <pschroeder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
fedora-release to system-release
nope not that package since the fedora-release package contains
exactly the bits of configuration that tag a system as running
'fedora'. This is nothing in fedora-release that a downstream distro
would need to provide except for /etc/redhat-release file because
initscripts needs it which is a symlink anyways. A downstream distro
has absolutely no business reusing the bulk of the files in
fedora-release.
Actually, I think the point was if you want to create Dodo Linux 7 based
on Fedora Core 6 it's easier to substitute the Dodo Linux id if the
package/file providing it has a neutral name. No need to scan scripts and
deps for fedora references - just replace the release file in the package
with a new one.
Yea.. This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. If somebody wanted
to replace initscripts for instance, it is just nicer to replace the files in
that package or do a patch in the spec file. I wouldn't create an entirely new
"myinitscripts" package. I suppose you could create a new package and say that
is "provides initscripts". But that just feels dirty. And it doesn't keep you
consistent with FC upstream.
Either way you're going to replace the files in, for example, fedora-release.
Either by changing the files in the package or creating a new one. The name of
a package/distro doesn't really change what people do with them.
As I mentioned, not a big deal, but it would just seem more consistent and
cleaner to me.
--
---
Paul B Schroeder <pschroeder "at" uplogix "dot" com>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
