On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:17:43PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Christophe Fergeau >> <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:43:58PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Christophe Fergeau >> >> <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > You are missing my point, I'm saying that ostree based images are >> >> > very >> >> > different from the GNOME live CDs that are already listed in >> >> > libosinfo >> >> > database, >> >> >> >> And that is simply not true. They are both GNOME. The fact that <=3.8 >> >> media were based on fedora was an implementation detail that is pretty >> >> irrelevant. They are both still the same OS. >> > >> > From a user point of view, this could be the way the GNOME project >> > wants to >> > market these images. From a libosinfo internal representation point of >> > view, I think this 'implementation detail' is significant enough for us >> > to >> > represent them differently. Different base OS can also mean differences >> > in >> > hardware supported by the image. >> > >> > The live cd and these ostree images are very different things, let's >> > represent them _internally_ as different OSes (note that I haven't said >> > anything about the user-visible OS names). >>- >> If you read my previous mail more thoroughly, I already explained how >> we can deal with this difference when such a difference realizes (i-e >> *if* there is a fedora-based gnome iso again for some reason) >> *without* breaking anything what so ever. > > What do we do when the GNOME project starts releasing GNOME OS > installer ISOs if they happen not to be based on ostree for some reason? That is an even more unlikely scenerio. Talk to the people involved a bit and you'll realize this: <zeenix> [16:48:51] is there any intentions still to do installer for gnome? <zeenix> [16:49:52] hughsie: poettering: owen: ^ <zeenix> [16:50:19] the installer question, not ramcq's kudos :) <hughsie> [16:50:44] zeenix, not by me, mclasen would kill me <mclasen> [16:51:23] zeenix: what would the installer do ? <zeenix> [17:00:51] mclasen: install gnome? :) <zeenix> [17:01:09] i guess the answer is 'no' then <ebassi> [17:12:12] zeenix: I guess the actual question would be: what does "install gnome" mean? <mclasen> [17:15:20] wget http://build.gnome.org/ostree/buildmaster/images/z/current/gnome-ostree-x86_64-runtime.qcow2.gz ? <zeenix> [17:20:39] ebassi: i don't know. I'm just curious > Wouldn't we want to use the http://gnome.org/3.10 id for that rather than > having something else use that? As I've been trying to explain, this is unlikely to happen in the first place. *If* it happens, a bit of weird IDs are nothing to be concerned or worried about. >> So your whole point is now >> mute as I already made changes to my patches that do take this >> difference in account as much as it needs to be right now. > > My initial point still stands, it's just weird to have http://gnome.org/3.6 > be a fedora-based live cd, A very unlikely weirdness in future is fine by me and I'd choose that over breaking the ID scheme already for it. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
