On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:23:22PM +0000, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:02:23PM +0000, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> > Do we want a 'catch-all' entry without specifying a size? > >> > Or provide a way to do 'fuzzy' identification where the size would be > >> > ignored for ISO detection? "This looks like a Fedora 19 ISO" when the > >> > byte size is off by one is much better than "I don't know what ISO this > >> > is". > >> > >> My thinking was that we don't really need to care about those ISOs now > >> that they have been long obsoleted. As you can probably see through > >> the changes, it took me quite a while to make these changes so I was > >> obviously being lazy to go that extra mile to keep supporting those > >> ISOs. > >> > >> Anyway, do we really want to keep supporting those ISOs? > > > > I don't think we should put a lot of effort into supporting them. > > However, if someone has one lying on its hard-drive, knowing that the > > ISO he has looks like some kind of unknown or obsolete Fedora ISO would > > imo be much more helpful than pretending we don't know anything about > > that ISO. > > I agree but my question was more like do we really need to care of > that corner case? With all these changes, we already have A LOT of > media entries and I'd rather not complicate the XML file even further > for this case. One way of doing that would be to have API for 'fuzzy' media identification, which would not do the size check. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpXXrDmHsCHI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
