Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 498052
Minor documentation missing in sysconfig.txt
Last modified: 2011-01-13 18:05:08 EST
Description of problem:
/usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt is missing a description of DHCP_HOSTNAME in the ifcfg-<interface> section.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. grep 'DHCP_HOSTNAME' /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt
No description given, but this is set by default for installs.
This option is used to pass a hostname to the dhcp server, which updates dynamic dhcp where available. There should be a section in the sysconfig.txt file stating something to this affect.
Maybe something like:
DHCP_HOSTNAME=<hostname> Optional, offers hostname to the DHCP server for Dynamic DNS updates.
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?
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
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.