On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:52:59PM +0100, Martin Sivak wrote: > > IOW there should not be any distinction between the way we deal > > with a general purpose profile for a guest OS, from the way we > > deal with an SAP or Oracle optimized profile for a guest OS. I > > would consider it a big failure if we had different ways to > > handle the general purpose config vs the application optimized > > config. > > The issue here is in maintenance. Either you maintain the full matrix > of profiles or you have to deal with conflicts between what guest OS, > application and hypervisor all allow. Also some of the configuration > logic depends on hypervisor, libvirt and kernel and product versions > you will not be able to express. Some device might be working > according to the database, but the product owners (RHV, CNV, ..) might > decide to not use it for support reasons (legal, too many bugs, > integration issues..). So the product specific (as opposed to generic) > application profile can be based on more than just generally available > hard requirements data. I don't think any of that really matters from libosinfo's POV. We're just defining a way to record & retrieve profile information. Apps are free to ignore profiles they don't wish to support, or they can drop in extra DB XML files to augment an existing profile, or blackout a profile, or to define new profiles just for their own usage. 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
