On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:05 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:15:26PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > > On 09/07/2018 03:18 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > This patch series basically consists in a fix for a possibly > > > always > > > present issue that I've faced Today after adding more data to > > > osinfo-db. > > > > > > Please, take a careful look at "db: Force anchored ..." patch as > > > this is > > > the most important patch of the series. > > > > > > As this change ends up exposing a few more issues on osinfo-db, > > > would be > > > really nice to have the osinfo-db patches merged altogether. > > > > > > It's important to note that the osinfo-db patches themselves are > > > **not** > > > going to break something in case they're used against a "non- > > > patched" > > > libosinfo. > > > > > > Also, the osinfo-db patches will have their commit message edited > > > after > > > the libosinfo patches are pushed, so I can reference the proper > > > commit > > > hash in their commit messages. > > > > > > libosinfo: > > > Fabiano Fidêncio (2): > > > tests: Expand the arch's parser for isodetect > > > db: Force anchored patterns when matching regex > > > > > > osinfo/osinfo_db.c | 2 +- > > > tests/test-isodetect.c | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > osinfo-db: > > > Fabiano Fidêncio (3): > > > altlinux: Fix publisher-id for 4.0 and 4.1 > > > win10: Fix volume-id > > > openbsd: Fix all publisher-ids > > > > > > > I guess technically this could constitute an API break: if a user > > has custom > > installed db entries and is depending on this behavior, they could > > see > > different results after an update. That said I doubt it's an issue > > in > > practice, and implying ANCHORED mode is the better long term option > > IMO, so: > > > > Reviewed-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> > > If we want anchored matches, then the osinfo-db regexes should > include the "^" and "$" anchors as they see fit. We shouldn't force > it in libosinfo API itself. Note that we explicitly allow apps to > load & interpret the XML files directly without using libosinfo APIs, > which further pushes to using anchors in the XML So, your preference would be to revert the libosinfo patch and then patch osinfo-db case-by-case? > > Regards, > Daniel _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
