Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:05:36AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > > This sounds reasonable to me. Should we also drop 'derives-from' from > > the previous releases' entries? > > Hmm, git grep'ping, derives-from is used all over the place ;) One thing > I don't know for sure is whether it should be used for major upgrades > (RHEL 6 to RHEL 7, or Fedora 21 to 22). > > > Also, thinking about it, I'm not sure about one thing regarding > > 'upgrades': FreeBSD supports multiple major versions in parallel. > > > > For example it could be this way: > > > > 10.3 -> 10.4 > > | > > 11.0 -> 11.1 -> ... -> 11.X > > > > So 10.4 will become a dead end because there'll be no entries that > > refer it in <upgrades> (e.g. 11.X will refer 11.(X-1)). What's the right > > way to handle that? > > I don't know how much it is documented that 11.0 upgrades 10.3 and not > 10.4? Is it just this way because we added to the database first 10.3, > then 11.0, and finally 10.4? Or are there stronger requirements? Yeah, it's this way because 11.0 goes before 10.4. > Most of the times, things are this way in the database because of the > timing of additions, if 11.0 was added later than 10.4, 11.0 would be > marked as upgrading 10.4 rather than 10.3. > So it might make sense to update the 11.0 entry to refer to 10.4 if > needed. However, I don't think a lot of things are looking into these > upgrades/derives links. Maybe libosinfo follows them for device support( > I always forget ;) And it probably does not matter too much to have dead > ends. Ok, so let it be as it is now. Roman Bogorodskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
