RE: [Oscar-devel] Support for RHEL4

[Bernard Li]

Title: Re: [Oscar-devel] Support for RHEL4

I think for the sake of getting RHEL4 supported for OSCAR 4.2, I will stick with redhat-el4 for now since 'redhat' is an already known 'distro' and changing it to 'rhel' may potentially break a lot of things.

 

Remember this stuff that we are talking about is the interim before we have OS_Detect framework in place, therefore, I suggest that we 'move' this discussion to the OS_Detect front and decide what convention we wanted to use.  DongInn recently checked in the RedHat plug-in for the OS_Detect framework and I asked him to change it from RHEL to RedHat simply because we may want to be able to support the older Red Hat Linux (namely 9) if people demanded it (although I have specifically said that we are dropping support for it in the next release).

 

Regarding RHEL3u5, I have done a quick test before and it works fine.  When the OS_Detect framework is in place, then the user should get an error early enough if they are on an unsupported update version - that is why I asked DongInn to add in recognization code for Update versions.

 

I'm probably going to be checking in all my changes for RHEL4 support later today, as I don't want to be doing merging as Fernando seems to be working on the same files as I am ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

Bernard

---

From: David N. Lombard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 03/07/2005 10:59 AM
To: Erich Focht
Cc: oscar-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Bernard Li
Subject: Re: [Oscar-devel] Support for RHEL4

Erich Focht wrote:
> Bernard, David,
>
> we are talking here about a DISTRIBUTION NAME, not about a
> DISTRIBUTOR. Therefore I think "rhel" is most appropriate. After all "fedora"
> also comes from redhat and we don't call it "redhat-fedora". As the whole
> world is naming it RHEL, we can call it accordingly without fearing any
> confusion. Thinking of SuSE we'd need the difference between SLES and SuSEPro,
> it is similar and people immediately understand what you mean by SLES9, SuSE
> 9ES vs. 9Pro would be potentially misleading.

It depends.  There are various fc and rhel bits that are identical,
i.e., the only test is "redhat".  The same can be said for SuSE v. SLES.
  Don't forget RHEL and SLES are truly descendents of the free versions.

> I know I'm against the stream here, but I'd vote for simplicity:
>  rhel-4    instead of       redhat-el4u1 ,
>  $distro - $distro_version  instead of
>  $distro_maker - $distro_flavor_and_version_and_release

We've been burned by RHEL3 U2 v. RHEL3 U3, &etc, so I'm just
acknowledging the reality.  SLES will have similar issues when we get there.

Right now, we have the sorry state that:

People get confused by "3as", when the difference is just in adding a
couple of specific packages.

If somebody wants to use RHE3 U5, they either need to catch this (by
RTFM, but that's not the point) and MANUALLY fix the rpmlist in
SystemInstaller, or get burnt by it not working in odd ways.  By using
"redhat" "el3u2" and "redhat" "el3u3" they will (at least when I get
done with the current SysIn updates), get an error message "Sorry, but
this update of RHEL isn't supported."

--
David N. Lombard
Rossmoor, Orange County, CA
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=33.8&ns=North&lon=118.08&ew=West&alt=7&img=learth.evif