On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 03:49:53PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Christophe Fergeau > <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In this specific case, I don't think it's a good idea to add info meant for > > GNOME live cd images, and tell applications that this info is also good for > > GNOME os tree qcow2 images, > > We are providing info about gnome 3.10, whether its installed from > ISO, run from a live ISO or pre-installed disk images I disagree here. We are providing information about what libosinfo calls an 'OS', which currently roughly means 'major release of a distribution/Windows'. libosinfo does not attempt to define the memory/disk requirements for a desktop environment (if this was the case, why don't we have unity/kde/... entries there rathere than ubuntu/suse/... ?). Within a given 'os', we are indeed not making a difference between live cd/installed OS, ... In this case, the fedora-based gnome3 live CDs and the ostree-based disk images do not have much in common (rpm-based GNOME vs built from source GNOME, ...), so they should be separate OS in libosinfo DB. Moreover, if we start telling application writers that they can use the 'gnome3.10' OS to get information about an ostree system, then telling them differently at a later point would arguably be an ABI break, that's why I prefer to be careful. > > the requirements for the 2 OSes could end up > > being different. > > They can't possibly be drastically different given, can they? Why not? One is built from source, the other from Fedora, who knows which daemon/optional dependencies/... each of these are enabling? To my eyes ostree and the gnome3 live CDs are as different as Fedora and OpenSuse, which do have separate requirements in libosinfo. Christophe
Attachment:
pgp3uT6mKEyGO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
