From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-03 03:49:59
|
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, > > Dan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
From: <jam...@te...> - 2003-10-06 12:36:00
|
> 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 :) Actually, Jamie, I am not sure that 10 would be appropriate, as what comes out of Fedora does not seem to be tied to the old versioning. Basically RH, is going to focus on their enterprise products, while still giving internal developer bandwidth to Fedora. The old non-commercial version of RH is for all intensive purposes no more, and what is in its places is the Fedora Core which comes from the Fedora project. Cheers...james |
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-06 22:28:45
|
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 22:35, jam...@te... wrote: > > 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 :) > > Actually, Jamie, I am not sure that 10 would be appropriate, as what comes > out of Fedora does not seem to be > tied to the old versioning. Basically RH, is going to focus on their > enterprise products, while still giving internal > developer bandwidth to Fedora. The old non-commercial version of RH is for > all intensive purposes no more, > and what is in its places is the Fedora Core which comes from the Fedora > project. I guess the real question is what Redhat is going to call their next free release - will it be branded 'Redhat 10', or 'Fedora 1.0' ? That will determine the name that Webmin uses internally .. - Jamie |
From: Larry G. <List@ISComp.com> - 2003-10-06 23:37:22
|
It appears that 'Red Hat Linux Project' is replaced by 'The Fedora Project'. The distributions have transitioned from 'Red Hat' to 'Fedora Core'. The release schedule indicates that the name of the next release will be called 'Fedora Core 1' (http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/). The Fedora Project home page indicates that "The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core . . ." which also supports the naming convention. There is no mention of changing the code name 'Severn'. --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamie Cameron > I guess the real question is what Redhat is going to call > their next free release - will it be branded 'Redhat 10', or > 'Fedora 1.0' ? That will determine the name that Webmin uses > internally .. > > - Jamie |
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-03 07:33:24
|
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, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > - > > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > > To remove yourself from this list, go to > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-04 04:12:16
|
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, |
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-04 11:51:53
|
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, > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2003-10-05 12:52:39
|
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, |
From: Dan T. <da...@tu...> - 2003-10-05 22:47:24
|
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, > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > - > Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel |
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, |