RE: [WBEL-devel] Choosing a RHEL rebuild project

Henk van Lingen [mailto:[email protected]] said:

> What are the things being  
> 'rough around the
>   edges' in the various rebuilds? I suppose mostly artwork, remains of
>   RedHat trademarks and installer things? 

Mostly, yeah.  If you look at the CentOS desktop, the printer icon in the
toolbar is very fuzzy, like a lower res icon that was scaled up or
something.  CentOS also has a bad boot floppy image.  WBEL 1.0 was missing
some i686 packages like glibc, and there were of course some bad ISO's going
around for awhile after the release.  Nothing technical there to keep me
from using either one.

I've pushed the WBEL and CentOS installers and done maybe half a dozen
kickstart installs of the former and maybe twice as many or so of the
latter.  I used the miniboot ISO for both.  Both work great.

> I have the, probably
>   oversimplified, impression that since we are taking about 
> clones here
>   there is not much to do anymore once a build environment/scripts has
>   been set up. From there it is just building all the RH SRPMs, right?

Well RH has their own bugs that end up coming downstream to us.  It would
give our projects more legitimacy if we fixed some of those problems and
submitted patches to RH via their bugzilla system.

>   Additionally, I'm I right in thinking that upgrading a 
> running system
>   from build 4 to final once it arrives is simple, i.e. just 
> updating a
>   couple of rpms?

You might have to use --force because the version numbers aren't going to
change.  Packages are going to use the same version numbers as RHEL so if
something is fixed, for example, with some artwork between build 4 and 1.0,
the version number of the package won't be changed so yum won't even
consider upgrading it.  I think WBEL largely faced the same issues during
the beta cycle, no?