On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:05:36AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:00:38PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > > > Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:38:41PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > > > > > --- > > > > > data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) > > > > > create mode 100644 data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in b/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..5697b69 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ > > > > > +<libosinfo version="0.0.1"> > > > > > +<!-- Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or later. > > > > > + See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ for a copy of the license text --> > > > > > + <os id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.4";> > > > > > + <short-id>freebsd10.4</short-id> > > > > > + <_name>FreeBSD 10.4</_name> > > > > > + <version>10.4</version> > > > > > + <_vendor>FreeBSD Project</_vendor> > > > > > + <family>freebsd</family> > > > > > + <distro>freebsd</distro> > > > > > + <upgrades id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.3"/> > > > > > + <derives-from id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.3"/> > > > > > > > > There was some conversation on IRC regarding upgrades VS derives-from, I > > > > don't think derives-from is needed here. > > > > > > Could you please clarify when it's appropriate to use derives-from? > > > > > > PS It looks like these are not pushed yet. Do you want me to send v2 > > > with derives-from dropped or you can amend that before pushing? > > > > Yeah, did not push them on purpose waiting for your feedback :) I can > > amend before pushing, sure. My understanding of derives-from is that > > it's for special cases like ubuntu being forked off debian, or rhel > > deriving from fedora, or centos from RHEL. It's not meant to describe > > regular upgrades from one version to the next. > > > > Christophe > > This sounds reasonable to me. Should we also drop 'derives-from' from > the previous releases' entries? > > 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? Usually we just end up having 'upgrades' in release-date order, and then fixing up minor updates after the fact. eg when 10.4 comes out, switch 11.0 to be upgrades from 10.4 instead of 10.3 Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
