"Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> data/schemas/libosinfo.rng | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> index 735ced0..f35e439 100644
>> --- a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> +++ b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng
>> @@ -212,6 +212,11 @@
>> </attribute>
>> </element>
>> </optional>
>> + <optional>
>> + <element name="is-snapshot">
>> + <empty/>
>> + </element>
>> + </optional>
>
> I don't think this info is loaded if element is empty. There is no
> point in adding it if thats the case and also if you are not adding
> the API to retrieve this info either.
The original goal of this patch was to move some information that is
known to virt-manager to libosinfo so that we can use libosinfo instead
of hard-coding it.
It wasn't my intention to support "is-snapshot" with this series. I
needed this patch just to get tests working again and follow the
"is-snapshot" design that was suggested to me in the last iteration.
> As I said in a related mail, this isn't as trivial as it sounds so
> unless you have time to fix this properly, I suggest we go with the
> solution I provided ('Add an optional 'snapshot' tag to OS entries')
> for now and you rebase your patches on top of that patch of mine.
It would make more sense to me that we add these new OSes without
depending from another feature that is still work-in-progress.
It will be a trivial change to update those once is-snapshot is there.
Regards,
Giuseppe
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
