Hello, On 24 July 2018 10:54 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hey, > > For what it's worth, the <url> changes were again whitespace damaged, I > > had to fix them manually to apply that patch. > I will have to check the settings of my email client and fix that. Thanks for letting me know. > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:21:13AM -0400, Pierre-Alain TORET wrote: > > > - <media arch="x86_64"> > > - <url>https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.0/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot.iso</url> > > > > > > - <iso> > > > > > > - <system-id>NetBSD</system-id> > > > > > > - <volume-id>NETBSD_80</volume-id> > > > > > > - <volume-size>229435392</volume-size> > > > > > > - </iso> > > > > > > - </media> > > - <media arch="x86_64"> > > - <url>https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.0/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso</url> > > > > > > - <iso> > > > > > > - <system-id>NetBSD</system-id> > > > > > > - <volume-id>NETBSD_80</volume-id> > > > > > > - <volume-size>229435392</volume-size> > > > > > > - </iso> > > > > > > - </media> > > These 2 entries are exactly identical, and I checked this is not a typo. > > This is going to be a problem if we ever want to define variants to > > differentiate between boot.iso (vga console) and boot-com.iso (serial > > console). For now, this should be acceptable as they both will be > > identified as netbsd 8.0 x86_64, which is correct. It would be great if > > the netbsd people would make these 2 slightly different :) > Agree with that, but I'm not involved in NetBSD actually. I just noticed the new release. > Apart from this, looks good to me. > > Christophe _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
