Retail use productname #12185 keichwa

[keichwa]

Description

For product names make use of macros. the 'susemgr' does not make sense in the uyuni context.
Done for the first sections. I'll start a new PR for the rest.

Target branches

Which product version does this PR apply to?

• Manager-4.0
• Manager-4.1
• Manager-4.2
• Uyuni

Links

It partially addresses https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/12185

[keichwa]

I especially would like to know whether the redefinition of the 'smr' macro in entities.adoc with 'productname' would work?

[aaannz]

How binding word supported is here in docs? For SLE it is easy, as we provide support for SLE. But for Leap and Uyuni it is different picture.
UEFI Secure Boot should work on Leap, but I'm not sure about the supported statement.

[keichwa]

Ondřej Holeček <notifications@github.com> writes:

How binding word supported is here in docs? For SLE it is easy, as we provide support for SLE. But for Leap and Uyuni it is different picture.

Nice spot, a can of worms. I'll probably ifdef'ing it.

UEFI Secure Boot should work on Leap, but I'm not sure about the supported statement.

Thanks for feedback!

…

-- Karl Eichwalder

[keichwa]

Done. I also changed the support statement with the x86_64 architecture. For uyuni I now say, it is tested on that arch. @aaannz if we should say something better please provide feedback!

@Loquacity what do you think?

[Loquacity]

I especially would like to know whether the redefinition of the 'smr' macro in entities.adoc with 'productname' would work?

Just noticed this question. I think we would need to define {smr} as "for Retail" and use it as {productname} {smr}.

[keichwa]

Lana Brindley <notifications@github.com> writes:

Just noticed this question. I think we would need to define {smr} as "for Retail" and use it as {productname} {smr}.

Yes, this would work. Thanks!

…

-- Karl Eichwalder

[Loquacity]

Did you check the built docs?

[keichwa]

Did you check the built docs?

I now checked uyuni and suma. It builds. I think we should now merge (if you do not see big obstacles) and improve the rest later.

[Loquacity]

Yep, let's get it in before 4.1.2 👍

[keichwa]

Yep, let's get it in before 4.1.2 +1

Thus far, I did not intent to back-port it to 4.1, but it would make sense.

[Loquacity]

Yep, let's get it in before 4.1.2 +1

Thus far, I did not intent to back-port it to 4.1, but it would make sense.

I haven't cut the branch yet. If you want it in, you will need to merge it today.

[keichwa]

Yep, let's get it in before 4.1.2 +1

Thus far, I did not intent to back-port it to 4.1, but it would make sense.

I haven't cut the branch yet. If you want it in, you will need to merge it today.

For 4.1, I had to create a new PR: #533
cherry-pick did not work.