Hey,
--
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey,
This bit is slightly inaccurate,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 04:01:40PM +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> data/oses/centos.xml.in | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> .../centos7.0/CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso.txt | 29 ++++++++++++++++
> .../CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-Everything.iso.txt | 29 ++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 test/isodata/centos/centos7.0/CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso.txt
> create mode 100644 test/isodata/centos/centos7.0/CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-Everything.iso.txt
>
> diff --git a/data/oses/centos.xml.in b/data/oses/centos.xml.in
> index 7f53bb4..3c79918 100644
> --- a/data/oses/centos.xml.in
> +++ b/data/oses/centos.xml.in
> @@ -277,4 +277,44 @@
> </installer>
> </os>
>
> + <os id="http://centos.org/centos/7.0">
> + <short-id>centos7.0</short-id>
> + <_name>CentOS 7.0</_name>
> + <version>7.0</version>
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html
says:
« This is the first release for CentOS-7 and is version marked as
7.0-1406 »
We should at least reflect this in the <version> field, and maybe in the
<name> too.
Hmm. I disagree.
Are we adding new entries for every 7.0-x release?
Are we adding new entries for every 7.0-x release?
Christophe
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
--
Fabiano Fidêncio
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
