On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:13:02PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 05:35:15PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the very long explanation (I especially appreciated the >> >> ascii-art diagram) but I don't quite agree. >> >> >> >> While I don't see any harm in -db not depending on libosinfo, I really >> >> don't see the benefit of going as far as to providing a separate >> >> package for db tools. The -db does not necessarily be only data >> >> either. I'd just keep the tools in -db or libosinfo and avoid the >> >> maintenance and packaging headache. >> > >> > Actually I think it would make maintenance easier because it avoids >> > tieing together things that would naturally evolve seprately. For >> > example, there could be cases where a distro would want to update >> > the DB management tools, but not pull in a new library version, >> > or vica-verca. Letting these things evolve separately with their >> > own release schedules will make life simpler for people consuming >> > them, as they won't be faced with mutually exclusive decisions about >> > which updates to pull in if they want to rebase some parts but not >> > others. >> > >> > This may not sound like a big deal when all osinfo-db-tools contains >> > is a couple of command line tools for validate & unpacking archives, >> > but I've mentioned ideas before about providing tools to periodically >> > query & download updated database version, so the osinfo-db-tools >> > package is likely to gain more functionality & complexity over time. >> > So I think over the long term the split will be beneficial to all >> > involved. >> >> But why are we being religious about "no code in -db" package? > > It makes life much easier to get updates into distros. For example, if > the package is 100% pure data, then for RHEL we can likely get an exception > to allow updating of the data for every single release, as is done with > updating things like pci.ids & usb.ids package. If the rebase included > any amount of code / tools too, then there is increased risk and would > need to go through the normal update approval workflow. But distro packages do not need to have a 1-1 correspondence with upstream. Downstreams already create multiple packages out of libosinfo (-devel, -docs etc). I"m all of making lives easy for packagers but I'd draw the line somewhere. Anyway, up to you. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
