On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey, > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The regex matching x86-64 enterprise variants is not as strict as it >> could: it's going to match IR5_CENNA_X64FREV or IR1_CENA_X64FREV for >> example for which we don't have test cases. >> However, I'm confident this will match >> en_windows_8.1_enterprise_n_with_update_x64_dvd.iso and >> en_windows_8.1_enterprise_x64_dvd.iso >> if such ISOs exist, and that it's not going to give us false >> positives. Since it might allow us to identify unknown ISOs >> without false positives, I went for it. > > If you are confident about this, so am I. :) Oh, I meant to write: ACK for both patches. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ________________________________________ Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
