15 or rawhide?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:28 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:26 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> > The question I have for the abrt folks, is there any code that would
> > lead to a bug being filed for rawhide?  If so, how is that code triggered?
> 
> I believe they claimed it was through parsing for "Rawhide" in the
> release string value. I think that's a little flimsy in general though.
> Shouldn't we have some other way to indicate this is rawhide?

Mandriva introduced a /etc/product.id file to their mandriva-release
package, which identifies a release in a kind of more detailed and
possibly more reliably parseable way. I'm not sure if that's not just
something else that can go wrong, though. It looks like this:

vendor=Mandriva,distribution=Mandriva
Linux,type=Basic,version=2010.1,branch=Official,release=1,arch=i586,product=Free

and is documented at http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/product_id

I'm not sure parsing /etc/redhat-release or whatever is really *wrong*,
though. I mean, that's the thing that exists to define what release
you're on. If the release is Rawhide and it doesn't say Rawhide, then
I'd say that's pretty much always going to be a bug, so I'm not entirely
sure why it'd be a problem to identify Rawhide by
parsing /etc/foo-release for Rawhide.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net