On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 04:19:54PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > 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. Ah ok, I was not fully sure if tihs was the case or not, thanks for bearing with me. And sorry for spending time on something that did not need discussing! Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
