On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 02:55:18PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> >> > If they are public, what happens in libosinfo if we try to set a >> >> > non-existent parameter? In other word, should we consider this an >> >> > API/ABI break, or are we fine with dropping it? >> >> >> >> We're totally fine dropping it. >> >> If we try to set a non-existent parameter (or pattern) autoyast is >> >> smart enough to not break the installation because of that. >> > >> > My worry was in libosinfo API, what happens to code using libosinfo and >> > trying to set this config parameter? Is this going to cause problems? Or >> > will it just be ignored? >> >> I see. About this, we don't actually set this parameter never ever. >> It's been only internal so far. > > "we"? My question was more if hypothetical "unknown" libosinfo users > could try to use that, and get failures after it gets removed. I agree > it's very far fetched, I was just trying to assess the impact of this > removal ;) > "We" :-) I meant, libosinfo doesn't even expose this option, never ever. May be the case, at some point in the future, that we'll need to expose it and leave it to the user decide whether they want or not to add some additional scripts to configure something post installation, That's not the case for now. > Christophe Thanks a lot for the review, Christophe! -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
