Bug 1282008 - Clarify language when referring to non-RH packages
Clarify language when referring to non-RH packages
Status: NEW
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: preupgrade-assistant-el6toel7 (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: pstodulk
Alois Mahdal
: Extras
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-11-14 01:46 EST by Alois Mahdal
Modified: 2017-09-14 08:10 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Alois Mahdal 2015-11-14 01:46:56 EST
Description of problem

Use of "Non-RH signed" term when referring to "user's packages" may
be confusing.

In particular, "Non-RH signed" may be understood as referring to packages
that are signed, but not by Red Hat.   But in fact, we don't make any
distinction between packages signed by other authorities or not signed
at all; this term may create impression that there is such distinction.

Version-Release number of selected component


Additional info

Other term that has been mentioned and is sometimes used in same context
is are "3rd party packages".  IMHO this is better, but still may sound a
bit awkward in some situations, in particular if the packages are owned
solely by customer: there is no 3rd party (just us and them).

My suggestion is to use very simple language here, such as "foreign" or
"non-RH" packages.  The important distinction here is that the packages
are not already "covered" by Red Hat so someone should take a look.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.