On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 10:43 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 3/5/19 10:31 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 09:33 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > > > On 3/5/19 7:52 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:48 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:22 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 18:41 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > > > > > > > This series adds: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * centos5 entries > > > > > > > * centos6 <tree> data > > > > > > > * scientificlinux 5.X > > > > > > > * scientificlinux 6.X > > > > > > > * scientificlinux 7.X > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No iso data is added, just URLs. I'm trying to get > > > > > > > osinfo-db > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > all the treeinfo coverage that virt-install has. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cole, in the general the series look good (apart from one > > > > > > change > > > > > > that > > > > > > has to be for "Add scientificlinux-7.X". > > > > > > > > > > > > There's one thing that I'm interested to know, though: > > > > > > - Is x.y considered EOL whenever x.(y+1) is released? I > > > > > > mean, > > > > > > will > > > > > > 7.6 > > > > > > be considered EOL whenever 7.7 is released? If so, we'd > > > > > > also > > > > > > have > > > > > > to > > > > > > add the EOL to the 7.x entries. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, for patches #1 to #5: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, let me take my "Reviewed-by" back. > > > > > Please, take a look at 5cac22bc68[0]. > > > > > > > > > > There, the commit message states: > > > > > centos: Remove URLs pointing to vault.centos.org > > > > > > > > > > As vault.centos.org doesn't keep any ISO anymore, let's just > > > > > remove > > > > > them from our db. > > > > > > > > > > Along with the URLs removal, let's remove together the tree's > > > > > as > > > > > those > > > > > can't be accessed without a valid URL. > > > > > > > > > > Removing all the vault.centos.org URLs matches with the > > > > > recommendation > > > > > given by CentOS folks in #centos-devel: > > > > > "so in short, if some program links to vault, it's most > > > > > likely > > > > > not a > > > > > good idea and may not even work" > > > > > > > > > > [0]: > > > > > https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/commit/5cac22bc6852d56988ff4be090551c5ec2f3f108 > > > > > > > > > > So, I guess the path to take is to drop #1 and #3. > > > > > > > > Errr, dropping the URLs from #1 and #3, but keeping the > > > > tree/treeinfo. > > > > > > > > > > ACK from me, though what was centos reasoning for not pointing to > > > vault.centos.org tree URLs? Those have been stable for years in > > > my > > > experience. I can understand if they don't want those advertised > > > but > > > it's unclear why the comment suggests it might not work > > > > So, the whole conversation I had on #centos-devel was more about > > link > > to their medias than the tree itself, but let me try to summarise > > everything there: > > > > I've contacted #centos-devel because the EOL medias are always > > removed > > from vault, in a way that the links would automatically redirect > > to > > http://vault.centos.org/notonvault.html ... This is expected as a > > CentOS release becomes unsupported shortly after a new release > > comes > > out. > > > > The trees follow pretty much the same process as the one followed > > by > > the ISOs. So, for instance, while we have a valid tree for 6.10 ( > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.10/os/x86_64), the tree for 6.9 > > is > > not valid anymore. Trying to access > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/os/x86_64/ you'd get a 404 and > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/ has one single file mentioning > > that the system has reached its EOL: > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/readme > > > > Apart from that, I've also faced some issues where we'd have the > > tree > > but only with the sources but not with the packages. When I asked > > about > > that, the aswer that I got was that apps should not be relying on > > vault. > > > > Hmm I haven't seen that 'sources' issue but I guess if centos folks > say > 'dont use vault.centos.org' then we should listen to them. > > > One thing that we can do is to: > > - Always add the URL for the current supported release; > > - Remove the URL as soon as the new release is done; > > > Makes sense to me About our own soap-opera here ... I'll go with the Patches #1 and #3 as they were submitted. > > - Cole _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
