On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:13:51PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) 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. :) Honestly, looking at > these Windows volume-ids give me headache, but kudos to MS for > ensuring unique volume-ids though. "reverse-engineering" the scheme used for these labels do not seem that hard actually, by comparing the different labels of the ISO variants, it's quite easy to figure out the meaning of the various group of letters. I've pushed these patches. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpWLvXzyR296.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
