Menu
▾
▴
Re: [webmin-devel] Port of webmin to Fedora Core 0.94
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-06 00:21:21
|
That sounds like a pretty good solution as well - although the redhat version number should be 10 instead of 10.0, as redhat seems to have dropped the .0 in versions 8 and 9 :) - Jamie Dan Tucny wrote: > The Fedora Project is what was to be Red Hat Linux 10. Out of the Fedora > Project come a couple of things... Fedora Core, the core distro, same > sort of thing as you would have had with Red Hat Linux... Fedora Extras, > Fedora Alternatives & Fedora Legacy... > > Anyway... > > How about this then? > > The following lines in os_list.txt... > > Fedora Core 0.94 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ > Fedora Core 0.95 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.95\s/ > Fedora Core 1.0 redhat-linux 10.0 > $etc_issue =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0\)?s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release > 2>&1` =~ /fedora\s*core.*\s1(\.0)?\s/ > > That should cover us for upto and including release 1 of Fedora Core... > I'll revisit the port once the test cycle for release 2 kicks off, > that's when there will likely be changes and there won't be a Red Hat > linux to base it on... Hopefully by then things will be a bit cleared... > > How's that sound?? > > Dan > > > > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 13:50, Jamie Cameron wrote: > >> From reading their site, it looks like Fedora is a beta/development >>version of the next freely available redhat release, so I think it >>makes sense to have webmin treat it as a redhat variant like versions >>7.3, 8 and 9. >> >>However, since they don't seem to be planning to call the next >>official release 'redhat fedora 1.0' rather than 'redhat 10', webmin >>should use that version number as well. Probably the best solution is >>webmin's internal name for Fedora to remain as 'redhat-linux', but for >>the version number to be 'fedora-1.0'. >> >>So the os_list.txt entry would be like : >> >>Redhat Linux Fedora 1.0 redhat-linux fedora-1.0 $etc_issue >>=~ /fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ >>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ >> >>And config files would be named like config-redhat-linux-fedora-1.0, >>and module.info os_support line entries (where needed) would be like >>redhat-linux/fedora-1.0 . I don't see any need to treat the current >>betas of fedora (like 0.94) any different from the actual 1.0 release, >>as hopefully they will be totally compatible. >> >>Any chance you could modify your patch to use this naming scheme? >> >> - Jamie >> >>Dan Tucny wrote: >> >>>If this was to support a code named prerelease beta of Redhat Linux e.g. >>>Severn, then having it as Redhat Linux Severn with a version of severn >>>would be fine... >>> >>>However... Redhat Linux (the product) is no more... (The Redhat >>>Enterprise Linux product does still exist) >>> >>>What's actually happened is that what may have originally been planned >>>to be Redhat Linux 10 has in fact become the starting point of the >>>Fedora Project. Fedora Core 0.94 is the current beta/test 2, there will >>>be a beta/test 3 coming out in the next couple of weeks followed by >>>release 1 at the beginning of November... After this the cycle will >>>start for release 2 etc. Lots could change between releases... >>> >>>Check out http://fedora.redhat.com for more info... >>> >>>I think it should be split out from Redhat, if for nothing else, to make >>>it easier to cater for release differences in fedora core... However... >>>I respect that webmin is your project, so I'll leave the decision in >>>your hands :) >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Dan >>> >>>On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 05:00, Jamie Cameron wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Perhaps then it should be treated as a new version of Redhat.. In your >>>>patch, you named all the config files config-fedora-core, when they >>>>really should have been config-redhat-linux-fedora. The os_list.txt >>>>line would be more like : >>>> >>>>Redhat Linux Fedora redhat-linux fedora $etc_issue =~ >>>>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/i || `cat /etc/redhat-release 2>&1` =~ >>>>/fedora\s*core.*\s0\.94\s/ >>>> >>>>This way, in modules where Fedora doesn't differ from 'standard' >>>>Redhat at all, there is no need for a separate config file, or >>>>addition to the os_support= entry in module.info files.. and config >>>>files like config-*-linux will be used on Fedora as well. >>>> >>>>Of course, if it is radically different from the standard Redhat >>>>releases then this may not make sense. Is it? >>>> >>>> - Jamie >>>> >>>>Dan Tucny wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It was based virtually entirely on RH10... I was thinking about making >>>>>webmin just treat Fedora as RH10, but decided against it in the >>>>>interests of preparing for the possibility of future changes without >>>>>impacting the existing RH code and 'doing a proper job' of the port >>>>>etc... >>>>> >>>>>Dan >>>>> >>>>>On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 04:41, Jamie Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Your patch looks cool, but I think it would have made more sense to >>>>>>have webmin treat Fedora as another Redhat version, or better still the >>>>>>same as an existing version. Was your port based on one of the existing RH >>>>>>releases, such as 9 or 10? >>>>>> >>>>>>- Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>>Dan Tucny <da...@tu...> wrote .. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've been doing a bit of work porting the 1.113 development release of >>>>>>>webmin to Fedora Core 0.94, Test 2, Severn... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It all appears to work so I've made a patch... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The patch can be found on the webmin sourceforge site under patches... >>>>>>>specifically... >>>>>>>https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=816843&group_id=17457&atid=317457 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I hope it's useful... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, |
