Bug 498052
| Summary: | Minor documentation missing in sysconfig.txt | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Jim Perrin <james.l.perrin> |
| Component: | initscripts | Assignee: | initscripts Maintenance Team <initscripts-maint-list> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | qe-baseos-daemons |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 5.3 | CC: | azelinka, harald, mharris, notting |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | initscripts-8.45.32-1.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-01-13 23:05:08 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 600484 | ||
|
Description
Jim Perrin
2009-04-28 16:26:58 UTC
This option is also configured by default in some instances, and is generated via kickstart using network --device ethX --onboot yes/no --bootproto dhcp --hostname your.host.com Fixed in upstream with commit http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=initscripts.git;a=commitdiff;h=7333b2fc35bb99378c81b9f7184b6c8423f078c1. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?". Does this mean it's not planned for a 5.4 update, or it's not planned for a 5.x update period? I'm a bit confused as to why something as simple as a documentation fix wouldn't be approved. Could someone shed some light on why this wasn't approved for an update? (In reply to comment #4) > Does this mean it's not planned for a 5.4 update, or it's not planned for a 5.x > update period? It's not planned for 5.4; it will likely make a later update. > I'm a bit confused as to why something as simple as a documentation fix > wouldn't be approved. Could someone shed some light on why this wasn't approved > for an update? Bug fixes to packages with a higher priority and more customer impact than initscripts took priority for this cycle; there are a limited number of updates for each release. fair enough. thanks for the update. So this didn't make it into 5.5 either? Correct; sorry. I wasn't trying to lay blame, just a little surprised. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. I just pulled a bit of hair out on this one too, thanks for pointing out this documentation flaw Jim. Hopefully others will stumble upon this bug like I just did also. An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0075.html |